The incidence of new celiac disease with onset by age 10 appears to be rising and varies widely by region, suggesting different environmental, genetic, and epigenetic influences within the United States, according to a new report.

The overall high incidence among pediatric patients warrants a low threshold for screening and additional research on region-specific celiac disease triggers, the authors write.

“Determining the true incidence of celiac disease (CD) is not possible without nonbiased screening for the disease. This is because many cases occur with neither a family history nor with classic symptoms,” write Edwin Liu, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the Children’s Hospital Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and director of the Colorado Center for Celiac Disease, and colleagues.

“Individuals may have celiac disease autoimmunity without having CD if they have transient or fluctuating antibody levels, low antibody levels without biopsy evaluation, dietary modification influencing further evaluation, or potential celiac disease,” they write.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Celiac disease incidence

The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) study prospectively follows children born between 2004 and 2010 who are at genetic risk for both type 1 diabetes and CD at six clinical sites in four countries: the United States, Finland, Germany, and Sweden. In the United States, patients are enrolled in Colorado, Georgia, and Washington.

As part of TEDDY, children are longitudinally monitored for celiac disease autoimmunity (CDA) by assessment of autoantibodies to tissue transglutaminase (tTGA). The protocol is designed to analyze the development of persistent tTGA positivity, CDA, and subsequent CD. The study population contains various DQ2.5 and DQ8.1 combinations, which represent the highest-risk human leukocyte antigen (HLA) DQ haplogentotypes for CD.

From September 2004 through February 2010, more than 424,000 newborns were screened for specific HLA haplogenotypes, and 8,676 children were enrolled in TEDDY at the six clinical sites. The eligible haplogenotypes included DQ2.5/DQ2.5, DQ2.5/DQ8.1, DQ8.1/DQ8.1, and DQ8.1/DQ4.2.

Blood samples were obtained and stored every 3 months until age 48 months and at least every 6 months after that. At age 2, participants were screened annually for tTGA. With the first tTGA-positive result, all prior collected samples from the patient were tested for tTGA to determine the earliest time point of autoimmunity.

CDA, a primary study outcome, was defined as positivity in two consecutive tTGA tests at least 3 months apart.

In seropositive children, CD was defined on the basis of a duodenal biopsy with a Marsh score of 2 or higher. The decision to perform a biopsy was determined by the clinical gastroenterologist and was outside of the study protocol. When a biopsy wasn’t performed, participants with an average tTGA of 100 units or greater from two positive tests were considered to have CD for the study purposes.

As of July 2020, among the children who had undergone one or more tTGA tests, 6,628 HLA-typed eligible children were found to carry the DQ2.5, the D8.1, or both haplogenotypes and were included in the analysis. The median follow-up period was 11.5 years.

Overall, 580 children (9%) had a first-degree relative with type 1 diabetes, and 317 children (5%) reported a first-degree relative with CD.

Among the 6,628 children, 1,299 (20%) met the CDA outcome, and 529 (8%) met the study diagnostic criteria for CD on the basis of biopsy or persistently high tTGA levels. The median age at CDA across all sites was 41 months. Most children with CDA were asymptomatic.

Overall, the 10-year cumulative incidence was highest in Sweden, at 8.4% for CDA and 3% for CD. Within the United States, Colorado had the highest cumulative incidence for both endpoints, at 6.5% for CDA and 2.4% for CD. Washington had the lowest incidence across all sites, at 4.6% for CDA and 0.9% for CD.

“CDA and CD risk varied substantially by haplogenotype and by clinical center, but the relative risk by region was preserved regardless of the haplogenotype,” the authors write. “For example, the disease burden for each region remained highest in Sweden and lowest in Washington state for all haplogenotypes.”
 

Site-specific risks

In the HLA, sex, and family-adjusted model, Colorado children had a 2.5-fold higher risk of CD, compared with Washington children. Likewise, Swedish children had a 1.8-fold higher risk of CD than children in Germany, a 1.7-fold higher than children in the United States, and a 1.4-fold higher risk than children in Finland.

Among DQ2.5 participants, Sweden demonstrated the highest risk, with 63.1% of patients developing CDA by age 10 and 28.3% developing CD by age 10. Finland consistently had a higher incidence of CDA than Colorado, at 60.4% versus 50.9%, for DQ2.5 participants but a lower incidence of CD than Colorado, at 20.3% versus 22.6%.

The research team performed a post hoc sensitivity analysis using a lower tTGA cutoff to reduce bias in site differences for biopsy referral and to increase sensitivity of the CD definition for incidence estimation. When the tTGA cutoff was lowered to an average two-visit tTGA of 67.4 or higher, more children met the serologic criteria for CD.

“Even with this lower cutoff, the differences in the risk of CD between clinical sites and countries were still observed with statistical significance,” the authors write. “This indicates that the regional differences in CD incidence could not be solely attributed to detection biases posed by differential biopsy rates.”

Multiple environmental factors likely account for the differences in autoimmunity among regions, the authors write. These variables include diet, chemical exposures, vaccination patterns, early-life gastrointestinal infections, and interactions among these factors. For instance, the Swedish site has the lowest rotavirus vaccination rates and the highest median gluten intake among the TEDDY sites.

Future prospective studies should capture environmental, genetic, and epigenetic exposures to assess causal pathways and plan for preventive strategies, the authors write. The TEDDY study is pursuing this research.

“From a policy standpoint, this informs future screening practices and supports efforts toward mass screening, at least in some areas,” the authors write. “In the clinical setting, this points to the importance for clinicians to have a low threshold for CD screening in the appropriate clinical setting.”

The TEDDY study is funded by several grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of new celiac disease with onset by age 10 appears to be rising and varies widely by region, suggesting different environmental, genetic, and epigenetic influences within the United States, according to a new report.

The overall high incidence among pediatric patients warrants a low threshold for screening and additional research on region-specific celiac disease triggers, the authors write.

“Determining the true incidence of celiac disease (CD) is not possible without nonbiased screening for the disease. This is because many cases occur with neither a family history nor with classic symptoms,” write Edwin Liu, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the Children’s Hospital Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and director of the Colorado Center for Celiac Disease, and colleagues.

“Individuals may have celiac disease autoimmunity without having CD if they have transient or fluctuating antibody levels, low antibody levels without biopsy evaluation, dietary modification influencing further evaluation, or potential celiac disease,” they write.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Celiac disease incidence

The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) study prospectively follows children born between 2004 and 2010 who are at genetic risk for both type 1 diabetes and CD at six clinical sites in four countries: the United States, Finland, Germany, and Sweden. In the United States, patients are enrolled in Colorado, Georgia, and Washington.

As part of TEDDY, children are longitudinally monitored for celiac disease autoimmunity (CDA) by assessment of autoantibodies to tissue transglutaminase (tTGA). The protocol is designed to analyze the development of persistent tTGA positivity, CDA, and subsequent CD. The study population contains various DQ2.5 and DQ8.1 combinations, which represent the highest-risk human leukocyte antigen (HLA) DQ haplogentotypes for CD.

From September 2004 through February 2010, more than 424,000 newborns were screened for specific HLA haplogenotypes, and 8,676 children were enrolled in TEDDY at the six clinical sites. The eligible haplogenotypes included DQ2.5/DQ2.5, DQ2.5/DQ8.1, DQ8.1/DQ8.1, and DQ8.1/DQ4.2.

Blood samples were obtained and stored every 3 months until age 48 months and at least every 6 months after that. At age 2, participants were screened annually for tTGA. With the first tTGA-positive result, all prior collected samples from the patient were tested for tTGA to determine the earliest time point of autoimmunity.

CDA, a primary study outcome, was defined as positivity in two consecutive tTGA tests at least 3 months apart.

In seropositive children, CD was defined on the basis of a duodenal biopsy with a Marsh score of 2 or higher. The decision to perform a biopsy was determined by the clinical gastroenterologist and was outside of the study protocol. When a biopsy wasn’t performed, participants with an average tTGA of 100 units or greater from two positive tests were considered to have CD for the study purposes.

As of July 2020, among the children who had undergone one or more tTGA tests, 6,628 HLA-typed eligible children were found to carry the DQ2.5, the D8.1, or both haplogenotypes and were included in the analysis. The median follow-up period was 11.5 years.

Overall, 580 children (9%) had a first-degree relative with type 1 diabetes, and 317 children (5%) reported a first-degree relative with CD.

Among the 6,628 children, 1,299 (20%) met the CDA outcome, and 529 (8%) met the study diagnostic criteria for CD on the basis of biopsy or persistently high tTGA levels. The median age at CDA across all sites was 41 months. Most children with CDA were asymptomatic.

Overall, the 10-year cumulative incidence was highest in Sweden, at 8.4% for CDA and 3% for CD. Within the United States, Colorado had the highest cumulative incidence for both endpoints, at 6.5% for CDA and 2.4% for CD. Washington had the lowest incidence across all sites, at 4.6% for CDA and 0.9% for CD.

“CDA and CD risk varied substantially by haplogenotype and by clinical center, but the relative risk by region was preserved regardless of the haplogenotype,” the authors write. “For example, the disease burden for each region remained highest in Sweden and lowest in Washington state for all haplogenotypes.”
 

Site-specific risks

In the HLA, sex, and family-adjusted model, Colorado children had a 2.5-fold higher risk of CD, compared with Washington children. Likewise, Swedish children had a 1.8-fold higher risk of CD than children in Germany, a 1.7-fold higher than children in the United States, and a 1.4-fold higher risk than children in Finland.

Among DQ2.5 participants, Sweden demonstrated the highest risk, with 63.1% of patients developing CDA by age 10 and 28.3% developing CD by age 10. Finland consistently had a higher incidence of CDA than Colorado, at 60.4% versus 50.9%, for DQ2.5 participants but a lower incidence of CD than Colorado, at 20.3% versus 22.6%.

The research team performed a post hoc sensitivity analysis using a lower tTGA cutoff to reduce bias in site differences for biopsy referral and to increase sensitivity of the CD definition for incidence estimation. When the tTGA cutoff was lowered to an average two-visit tTGA of 67.4 or higher, more children met the serologic criteria for CD.

“Even with this lower cutoff, the differences in the risk of CD between clinical sites and countries were still observed with statistical significance,” the authors write. “This indicates that the regional differences in CD incidence could not be solely attributed to detection biases posed by differential biopsy rates.”

Multiple environmental factors likely account for the differences in autoimmunity among regions, the authors write. These variables include diet, chemical exposures, vaccination patterns, early-life gastrointestinal infections, and interactions among these factors. For instance, the Swedish site has the lowest rotavirus vaccination rates and the highest median gluten intake among the TEDDY sites.

Future prospective studies should capture environmental, genetic, and epigenetic exposures to assess causal pathways and plan for preventive strategies, the authors write. The TEDDY study is pursuing this research.

“From a policy standpoint, this informs future screening practices and supports efforts toward mass screening, at least in some areas,” the authors write. “In the clinical setting, this points to the importance for clinicians to have a low threshold for CD screening in the appropriate clinical setting.”

The TEDDY study is funded by several grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

The incidence of new celiac disease with onset by age 10 appears to be rising and varies widely by region, suggesting different environmental, genetic, and epigenetic influences within the United States, according to a new report.

The overall high incidence among pediatric patients warrants a low threshold for screening and additional research on region-specific celiac disease triggers, the authors write.

“Determining the true incidence of celiac disease (CD) is not possible without nonbiased screening for the disease. This is because many cases occur with neither a family history nor with classic symptoms,” write Edwin Liu, MD, a pediatric gastroenterologist at the Children’s Hospital Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus and director of the Colorado Center for Celiac Disease, and colleagues.

“Individuals may have celiac disease autoimmunity without having CD if they have transient or fluctuating antibody levels, low antibody levels without biopsy evaluation, dietary modification influencing further evaluation, or potential celiac disease,” they write.

The study was published online in The American Journal of Gastroenterology.
 

Celiac disease incidence

The Environmental Determinants of Diabetes in the Young (TEDDY) study prospectively follows children born between 2004 and 2010 who are at genetic risk for both type 1 diabetes and CD at six clinical sites in four countries: the United States, Finland, Germany, and Sweden. In the United States, patients are enrolled in Colorado, Georgia, and Washington.

As part of TEDDY, children are longitudinally monitored for celiac disease autoimmunity (CDA) by assessment of autoantibodies to tissue transglutaminase (tTGA). The protocol is designed to analyze the development of persistent tTGA positivity, CDA, and subsequent CD. The study population contains various DQ2.5 and DQ8.1 combinations, which represent the highest-risk human leukocyte antigen (HLA) DQ haplogentotypes for CD.

From September 2004 through February 2010, more than 424,000 newborns were screened for specific HLA haplogenotypes, and 8,676 children were enrolled in TEDDY at the six clinical sites. The eligible haplogenotypes included DQ2.5/DQ2.5, DQ2.5/DQ8.1, DQ8.1/DQ8.1, and DQ8.1/DQ4.2.

Blood samples were obtained and stored every 3 months until age 48 months and at least every 6 months after that. At age 2, participants were screened annually for tTGA. With the first tTGA-positive result, all prior collected samples from the patient were tested for tTGA to determine the earliest time point of autoimmunity.

CDA, a primary study outcome, was defined as positivity in two consecutive tTGA tests at least 3 months apart.

In seropositive children, CD was defined on the basis of a duodenal biopsy with a Marsh score of 2 or higher. The decision to perform a biopsy was determined by the clinical gastroenterologist and was outside of the study protocol. When a biopsy wasn’t performed, participants with an average tTGA of 100 units or greater from two positive tests were considered to have CD for the study purposes.

As of July 2020, among the children who had undergone one or more tTGA tests, 6,628 HLA-typed eligible children were found to carry the DQ2.5, the D8.1, or both haplogenotypes and were included in the analysis. The median follow-up period was 11.5 years.

Overall, 580 children (9%) had a first-degree relative with type 1 diabetes, and 317 children (5%) reported a first-degree relative with CD.

Among the 6,628 children, 1,299 (20%) met the CDA outcome, and 529 (8%) met the study diagnostic criteria for CD on the basis of biopsy or persistently high tTGA levels. The median age at CDA across all sites was 41 months. Most children with CDA were asymptomatic.

Overall, the 10-year cumulative incidence was highest in Sweden, at 8.4% for CDA and 3% for CD. Within the United States, Colorado had the highest cumulative incidence for both endpoints, at 6.5% for CDA and 2.4% for CD. Washington had the lowest incidence across all sites, at 4.6% for CDA and 0.9% for CD.

“CDA and CD risk varied substantially by haplogenotype and by clinical center, but the relative risk by region was preserved regardless of the haplogenotype,” the authors write. “For example, the disease burden for each region remained highest in Sweden and lowest in Washington state for all haplogenotypes.”
 

Site-specific risks

In the HLA, sex, and family-adjusted model, Colorado children had a 2.5-fold higher risk of CD, compared with Washington children. Likewise, Swedish children had a 1.8-fold higher risk of CD than children in Germany, a 1.7-fold higher than children in the United States, and a 1.4-fold higher risk than children in Finland.

Among DQ2.5 participants, Sweden demonstrated the highest risk, with 63.1% of patients developing CDA by age 10 and 28.3% developing CD by age 10. Finland consistently had a higher incidence of CDA than Colorado, at 60.4% versus 50.9%, for DQ2.5 participants but a lower incidence of CD than Colorado, at 20.3% versus 22.6%.

The research team performed a post hoc sensitivity analysis using a lower tTGA cutoff to reduce bias in site differences for biopsy referral and to increase sensitivity of the CD definition for incidence estimation. When the tTGA cutoff was lowered to an average two-visit tTGA of 67.4 or higher, more children met the serologic criteria for CD.

“Even with this lower cutoff, the differences in the risk of CD between clinical sites and countries were still observed with statistical significance,” the authors write. “This indicates that the regional differences in CD incidence could not be solely attributed to detection biases posed by differential biopsy rates.”

Multiple environmental factors likely account for the differences in autoimmunity among regions, the authors write. These variables include diet, chemical exposures, vaccination patterns, early-life gastrointestinal infections, and interactions among these factors. For instance, the Swedish site has the lowest rotavirus vaccination rates and the highest median gluten intake among the TEDDY sites.

Future prospective studies should capture environmental, genetic, and epigenetic exposures to assess causal pathways and plan for preventive strategies, the authors write. The TEDDY study is pursuing this research.

“From a policy standpoint, this informs future screening practices and supports efforts toward mass screening, at least in some areas,” the authors write. “In the clinical setting, this points to the importance for clinicians to have a low threshold for CD screening in the appropriate clinical setting.”

The TEDDY study is funded by several grants from the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. The authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section

Key messages from the 2022 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension

1. Per coverage by the American College of Cardiology, “Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is now defined by a mean pulmonary arterial pressure >20 mm Hg at rest. The definition of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) also implies a pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) >2 Wood units and pulmonary arterial wedge pressure ≤15 mm Hg.”¹ These cut-off values do not translate into new therapeutic recommendations.

2. The diagnostic algorithm for PH now follows a simplified three-step approach, involving first suspicion by first-line physicians, then detection by echocardiography, and confirmation with right heart catheterization, preferably in a PH center.

3. Pulmonary vasoreactivity testing is only recommended in patients with idiopathic PAH, heritable PAH, or drug/toxin associated PAH to identify potential candidates for calcium channel blocker therapy. Inhaled nitric oxide or inhaled iloprost are the recommended agents.

*Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD
 Member-at-Large

Vijay Balasubramanian, MD, MRCP (UK)
Chair
 

*  The authors for this article were listed in the incorrect order in the print edition of CHEST Physician. The order has been corrected here.

References

1. Mukherjee, D. 2022 ESC/ERS guidelines for pulmonary hypertension: key points. American College of Cardiology. August 30, 2022.

2. Humbert M, Kovacs G, Hoeper MM, et al. 2022 ESC/ERS guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2022;43(38):3618-3731.
 

Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section

Key messages from the 2022 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension

1. Per coverage by the American College of Cardiology, “Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is now defined by a mean pulmonary arterial pressure >20 mm Hg at rest. The definition of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) also implies a pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) >2 Wood units and pulmonary arterial wedge pressure ≤15 mm Hg.”¹ These cut-off values do not translate into new therapeutic recommendations.

2. The diagnostic algorithm for PH now follows a simplified three-step approach, involving first suspicion by first-line physicians, then detection by echocardiography, and confirmation with right heart catheterization, preferably in a PH center.

3. Pulmonary vasoreactivity testing is only recommended in patients with idiopathic PAH, heritable PAH, or drug/toxin associated PAH to identify potential candidates for calcium channel blocker therapy. Inhaled nitric oxide or inhaled iloprost are the recommended agents.

*Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD
 Member-at-Large

Vijay Balasubramanian, MD, MRCP (UK)
Chair
 

*  The authors for this article were listed in the incorrect order in the print edition of CHEST Physician. The order has been corrected here.

References

1. Mukherjee, D. 2022 ESC/ERS guidelines for pulmonary hypertension: key points. American College of Cardiology. August 30, 2022.

2. Humbert M, Kovacs G, Hoeper MM, et al. 2022 ESC/ERS guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2022;43(38):3618-3731.
 

Pulmonary Vascular Disease Section

Key messages from the 2022 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Treatment of Pulmonary Hypertension

1. Per coverage by the American College of Cardiology, “Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is now defined by a mean pulmonary arterial pressure >20 mm Hg at rest. The definition of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) also implies a pulmonary vascular resistance (PVR) >2 Wood units and pulmonary arterial wedge pressure ≤15 mm Hg.”¹ These cut-off values do not translate into new therapeutic recommendations.

2. The diagnostic algorithm for PH now follows a simplified three-step approach, involving first suspicion by first-line physicians, then detection by echocardiography, and confirmation with right heart catheterization, preferably in a PH center.

3. Pulmonary vasoreactivity testing is only recommended in patients with idiopathic PAH, heritable PAH, or drug/toxin associated PAH to identify potential candidates for calcium channel blocker therapy. Inhaled nitric oxide or inhaled iloprost are the recommended agents.

*Mary Jo S. Farmer, MD, PhD
 Member-at-Large

Vijay Balasubramanian, MD, MRCP (UK)
Chair
 

*  The authors for this article were listed in the incorrect order in the print edition of CHEST Physician. The order has been corrected here.

References

1. Mukherjee, D. 2022 ESC/ERS guidelines for pulmonary hypertension: key points. American College of Cardiology. August 30, 2022.

2. Humbert M, Kovacs G, Hoeper MM, et al. 2022 ESC/ERS guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2022;43(38):3618-3731.
 

Pulmonary Physiology & Rehabilitation Section

Exercise tolerance in untreated sleep apnea

Numerous cardiovascular, respiratory, neuromuscular, and perceptual factors determine exercise tolerance. This makes designing a study to isolate the contribution of one factor difficult.

A recently published study (Elbehairy, et al. Chest. 2022; published online September 29, 2022) explores exercise tolerance in patients with untreated OSA compared with age- and weight-matched controls. The authors found that at an equivalent work rate, patients with OSA had greater minute ventilation, principally due to higher breathing frequency. Dead space volume, dead space ventilation, and dead space to tidal volume ratio (VD/VT) were higher in patients with OSA, likely due to a reduction in pulmonary vessel recruitment relative to ventilation. VD/VT decreased more from rest to peak in controls than in patients with OSA, an adaptation that is expected with exercise. Patients with OSA had greater arterial stiffness measured by pulse wave velocity and higher blood pressures, which may have affected cardiac output augmentation. Patients with OSA also had higher resting mean pulmonary artery pressures and exercise dyspnea scores. Regression models predicting peak oxygen uptake and peak work rate were statistically significant, with predictors being age, pulse wave velocity, and resting mean pulmonary artery pressure. The role of diastolic dysfunction remains to be determined.

Prior studies have shown that some effects of OSA on exercise may be reversed with CPAP treatment (Arias, et al. Eur Heart J. 2006;27[9]:1106-1113; Chalegre, et al. Sleep Breath. 2021;25[3]:1195-1202). Understanding the mechanisms of exercise limitation in OSA will help physicians address symptoms, reinforce CPAP adherence, and design tailored pulmonary rehabilitation programs.

Fatima Zeba, MD

Fellow-in-Training

Pulmonary Physiology & Rehabilitation Section

Exercise tolerance in untreated sleep apnea

Numerous cardiovascular, respiratory, neuromuscular, and perceptual factors determine exercise tolerance. This makes designing a study to isolate the contribution of one factor difficult.

A recently published study (Elbehairy, et al. Chest. 2022; published online September 29, 2022) explores exercise tolerance in patients with untreated OSA compared with age- and weight-matched controls. The authors found that at an equivalent work rate, patients with OSA had greater minute ventilation, principally due to higher breathing frequency. Dead space volume, dead space ventilation, and dead space to tidal volume ratio (VD/VT) were higher in patients with OSA, likely due to a reduction in pulmonary vessel recruitment relative to ventilation. VD/VT decreased more from rest to peak in controls than in patients with OSA, an adaptation that is expected with exercise. Patients with OSA had greater arterial stiffness measured by pulse wave velocity and higher blood pressures, which may have affected cardiac output augmentation. Patients with OSA also had higher resting mean pulmonary artery pressures and exercise dyspnea scores. Regression models predicting peak oxygen uptake and peak work rate were statistically significant, with predictors being age, pulse wave velocity, and resting mean pulmonary artery pressure. The role of diastolic dysfunction remains to be determined.

Prior studies have shown that some effects of OSA on exercise may be reversed with CPAP treatment (Arias, et al. Eur Heart J. 2006;27[9]:1106-1113; Chalegre, et al. Sleep Breath. 2021;25[3]:1195-1202). Understanding the mechanisms of exercise limitation in OSA will help physicians address symptoms, reinforce CPAP adherence, and design tailored pulmonary rehabilitation programs.

Fatima Zeba, MD

Fellow-in-Training

Pulmonary Physiology & Rehabilitation Section

Exercise tolerance in untreated sleep apnea

Numerous cardiovascular, respiratory, neuromuscular, and perceptual factors determine exercise tolerance. This makes designing a study to isolate the contribution of one factor difficult.

A recently published study (Elbehairy, et al. Chest. 2022; published online September 29, 2022) explores exercise tolerance in patients with untreated OSA compared with age- and weight-matched controls. The authors found that at an equivalent work rate, patients with OSA had greater minute ventilation, principally due to higher breathing frequency. Dead space volume, dead space ventilation, and dead space to tidal volume ratio (VD/VT) were higher in patients with OSA, likely due to a reduction in pulmonary vessel recruitment relative to ventilation. VD/VT decreased more from rest to peak in controls than in patients with OSA, an adaptation that is expected with exercise. Patients with OSA had greater arterial stiffness measured by pulse wave velocity and higher blood pressures, which may have affected cardiac output augmentation. Patients with OSA also had higher resting mean pulmonary artery pressures and exercise dyspnea scores. Regression models predicting peak oxygen uptake and peak work rate were statistically significant, with predictors being age, pulse wave velocity, and resting mean pulmonary artery pressure. The role of diastolic dysfunction remains to be determined.

Prior studies have shown that some effects of OSA on exercise may be reversed with CPAP treatment (Arias, et al. Eur Heart J. 2006;27[9]:1106-1113; Chalegre, et al. Sleep Breath. 2021;25[3]:1195-1202). Understanding the mechanisms of exercise limitation in OSA will help physicians address symptoms, reinforce CPAP adherence, and design tailored pulmonary rehabilitation programs.

Fatima Zeba, MD

Fellow-in-Training

Low-dose aspirin taken daily fails to reduce the risk of fractures and increases the risk of serious falls in older adults, a new study finds.

Previous research suggests that aspirin may reduce the risk of fragility fractures by delaying bone loss, but the direct effects of aspirin on bone microarchitecture and the association between aspirin use and fracture risk in humans has not been explored, corresponding author Anna L. Barker, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Barker, who is executive director of research and innovation for Silverchain (a senior care program), said, in an interview, that she and her coauthors hypothesized “that aspirin could reduce both falls and fractures by reducing cardiovascular-associated physical and cognitive impairments and the anti-inflammatory properties mediating bone remodeling.”
 

Study methods and results

In the ASPREE-FRACTURE substudy, the authors examined the impact of daily low-dose aspirin (100 mg) on incidence of any fracture in more than 16,000 community-dwelling adults aged 70 years and older. A secondary endpoint was the incidence of serious falls, defined as falls requiring a hospital visit. Individuals with chronic illness and cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease were excluded, as were those with dementia or other cognitive impairment, or a physical disability.

The study population included 16,703 participants enrolled in the larger Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) clinical trial between 2010 and 2014. Of these, 8,322 were randomized to aspirin and 8,381 to a placebo. The median age was 74 years, and 55% of the participants were women.

Over a median follow-up of 4.6 years (76,219 total person-years), the risk of first fracture was similar between the aspirin and placebo groups (hazard ratio, 0.97), but the risk of serious falls was significantly higher in the aspirin group (884 falls vs. 804 falls, P = .01).

The incidence of first fracture was similar between the aspirin and placebo groups (813 vs. 718), as was the incidence of all fractures (1,394 and 1,471, respectively).

The results for both fractures and falls were essentially unchanged in a multivariate analysis controlling for variables known to affect fracture and fall risk and remained similar for different types of fractures (hip, trauma-related, nonpathological) as well, the researchers noted.

In their discussion, the researchers wrote that the clinical significance of the study is the inability of aspirin to reduce the risk of fractures in otherwise healthy older adults. They expressed surprise at the increase in serious falls, citing their hypothesis that the antiplatelet effects of aspirin may reduce cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, thereby slowing physical decline and decreasing fall risk.

The increased risk of serious falls was not accompanied by an increase in fractures, and the increased fall risk was similar across subgroups of aspirin users, the researchers said.

Low-dose aspirin’s failure to reduce the risk of fractures but increasing the risk of serious falls adds to evidence that this agent provides little favorable benefit in a healthy, White older adult population.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively homogeneous older and healthy population, and possible insufficient study duration to allow for changes in fracture and fall risk, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations include that the dose of aspirin used in the study was too low to affect bone remodeling and the lack of data on bone density, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoporosis, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and high participant retention rate, and represent the first known examination of data from a randomized, controlled trial of the effect of aspirin on fractures, they added.
 

Setting the stage for more research

Overall, “This study adds to the growing body of evidence from other studies that the use of aspirin in people who do not have a risk of cardiovascular disease or stroke provides little benefit,” said Dr. Barker, who is also a professor at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. However, “Older adults with a medical reason to take aspirin should continue to do so,” she emphasized.

“The most important thing the study showed is the primary endpoint, which was that aspirin use does not have an effect on fracture risk,” said Neil Skolnik, MD, of Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, in an interview.

“The increase in serious falls, as defined by a fall resulting in a visit to a hospital, is likely due to an increased risk of bleeding after a fall on aspirin,” said Dr. Skolnik, who was not involved in the study. Dr. Skolnik added that the current study findings support the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which he quoted as follows, “The USPSTF recommends against initiating low-dose aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD in adults 60 years or older.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging and the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health; the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia); Monash University; and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Lead author Dr. Barker was supported in part by the NHMRC and also disclosed grants from the NHMRC outside the current study. The ASPREE substudy also was supported by the University of Pittsburgh Claude D. Pepper Older American Independence Center and the Wake Forest University Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center. Bayer AG provided the aspirin used in the study but had no other role. Dr. Skolnik had no financial conflicts to disclose, but he serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

Low-dose aspirin taken daily fails to reduce the risk of fractures and increases the risk of serious falls in older adults, a new study finds.

Previous research suggests that aspirin may reduce the risk of fragility fractures by delaying bone loss, but the direct effects of aspirin on bone microarchitecture and the association between aspirin use and fracture risk in humans has not been explored, corresponding author Anna L. Barker, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Barker, who is executive director of research and innovation for Silverchain (a senior care program), said, in an interview, that she and her coauthors hypothesized “that aspirin could reduce both falls and fractures by reducing cardiovascular-associated physical and cognitive impairments and the anti-inflammatory properties mediating bone remodeling.”
 

Study methods and results

In the ASPREE-FRACTURE substudy, the authors examined the impact of daily low-dose aspirin (100 mg) on incidence of any fracture in more than 16,000 community-dwelling adults aged 70 years and older. A secondary endpoint was the incidence of serious falls, defined as falls requiring a hospital visit. Individuals with chronic illness and cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease were excluded, as were those with dementia or other cognitive impairment, or a physical disability.

The study population included 16,703 participants enrolled in the larger Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) clinical trial between 2010 and 2014. Of these, 8,322 were randomized to aspirin and 8,381 to a placebo. The median age was 74 years, and 55% of the participants were women.

Over a median follow-up of 4.6 years (76,219 total person-years), the risk of first fracture was similar between the aspirin and placebo groups (hazard ratio, 0.97), but the risk of serious falls was significantly higher in the aspirin group (884 falls vs. 804 falls, P = .01).

The incidence of first fracture was similar between the aspirin and placebo groups (813 vs. 718), as was the incidence of all fractures (1,394 and 1,471, respectively).

The results for both fractures and falls were essentially unchanged in a multivariate analysis controlling for variables known to affect fracture and fall risk and remained similar for different types of fractures (hip, trauma-related, nonpathological) as well, the researchers noted.

In their discussion, the researchers wrote that the clinical significance of the study is the inability of aspirin to reduce the risk of fractures in otherwise healthy older adults. They expressed surprise at the increase in serious falls, citing their hypothesis that the antiplatelet effects of aspirin may reduce cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, thereby slowing physical decline and decreasing fall risk.

The increased risk of serious falls was not accompanied by an increase in fractures, and the increased fall risk was similar across subgroups of aspirin users, the researchers said.

Low-dose aspirin’s failure to reduce the risk of fractures but increasing the risk of serious falls adds to evidence that this agent provides little favorable benefit in a healthy, White older adult population.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively homogeneous older and healthy population, and possible insufficient study duration to allow for changes in fracture and fall risk, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations include that the dose of aspirin used in the study was too low to affect bone remodeling and the lack of data on bone density, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoporosis, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and high participant retention rate, and represent the first known examination of data from a randomized, controlled trial of the effect of aspirin on fractures, they added.
 

Setting the stage for more research

Overall, “This study adds to the growing body of evidence from other studies that the use of aspirin in people who do not have a risk of cardiovascular disease or stroke provides little benefit,” said Dr. Barker, who is also a professor at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. However, “Older adults with a medical reason to take aspirin should continue to do so,” she emphasized.

“The most important thing the study showed is the primary endpoint, which was that aspirin use does not have an effect on fracture risk,” said Neil Skolnik, MD, of Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, in an interview.

“The increase in serious falls, as defined by a fall resulting in a visit to a hospital, is likely due to an increased risk of bleeding after a fall on aspirin,” said Dr. Skolnik, who was not involved in the study. Dr. Skolnik added that the current study findings support the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which he quoted as follows, “The USPSTF recommends against initiating low-dose aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD in adults 60 years or older.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging and the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health; the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia); Monash University; and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Lead author Dr. Barker was supported in part by the NHMRC and also disclosed grants from the NHMRC outside the current study. The ASPREE substudy also was supported by the University of Pittsburgh Claude D. Pepper Older American Independence Center and the Wake Forest University Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center. Bayer AG provided the aspirin used in the study but had no other role. Dr. Skolnik had no financial conflicts to disclose, but he serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

Low-dose aspirin taken daily fails to reduce the risk of fractures and increases the risk of serious falls in older adults, a new study finds.

Previous research suggests that aspirin may reduce the risk of fragility fractures by delaying bone loss, but the direct effects of aspirin on bone microarchitecture and the association between aspirin use and fracture risk in humans has not been explored, corresponding author Anna L. Barker, PhD, and colleagues wrote in their paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine.

Dr. Barker, who is executive director of research and innovation for Silverchain (a senior care program), said, in an interview, that she and her coauthors hypothesized “that aspirin could reduce both falls and fractures by reducing cardiovascular-associated physical and cognitive impairments and the anti-inflammatory properties mediating bone remodeling.”
 

Study methods and results

In the ASPREE-FRACTURE substudy, the authors examined the impact of daily low-dose aspirin (100 mg) on incidence of any fracture in more than 16,000 community-dwelling adults aged 70 years and older. A secondary endpoint was the incidence of serious falls, defined as falls requiring a hospital visit. Individuals with chronic illness and cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease were excluded, as were those with dementia or other cognitive impairment, or a physical disability.

The study population included 16,703 participants enrolled in the larger Aspirin in Reducing Events in the Elderly (ASPREE) clinical trial between 2010 and 2014. Of these, 8,322 were randomized to aspirin and 8,381 to a placebo. The median age was 74 years, and 55% of the participants were women.

Over a median follow-up of 4.6 years (76,219 total person-years), the risk of first fracture was similar between the aspirin and placebo groups (hazard ratio, 0.97), but the risk of serious falls was significantly higher in the aspirin group (884 falls vs. 804 falls, P = .01).

The incidence of first fracture was similar between the aspirin and placebo groups (813 vs. 718), as was the incidence of all fractures (1,394 and 1,471, respectively).

The results for both fractures and falls were essentially unchanged in a multivariate analysis controlling for variables known to affect fracture and fall risk and remained similar for different types of fractures (hip, trauma-related, nonpathological) as well, the researchers noted.

In their discussion, the researchers wrote that the clinical significance of the study is the inability of aspirin to reduce the risk of fractures in otherwise healthy older adults. They expressed surprise at the increase in serious falls, citing their hypothesis that the antiplatelet effects of aspirin may reduce cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, thereby slowing physical decline and decreasing fall risk.

The increased risk of serious falls was not accompanied by an increase in fractures, and the increased fall risk was similar across subgroups of aspirin users, the researchers said.

Low-dose aspirin’s failure to reduce the risk of fractures but increasing the risk of serious falls adds to evidence that this agent provides little favorable benefit in a healthy, White older adult population.

The study findings were limited by several factors including the relatively homogeneous older and healthy population, and possible insufficient study duration to allow for changes in fracture and fall risk, the researchers noted. Other potential limitations include that the dose of aspirin used in the study was too low to affect bone remodeling and the lack of data on bone density, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoporosis, they said.

However, the results were strengthened by the large sample size and high participant retention rate, and represent the first known examination of data from a randomized, controlled trial of the effect of aspirin on fractures, they added.
 

Setting the stage for more research

Overall, “This study adds to the growing body of evidence from other studies that the use of aspirin in people who do not have a risk of cardiovascular disease or stroke provides little benefit,” said Dr. Barker, who is also a professor at Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. However, “Older adults with a medical reason to take aspirin should continue to do so,” she emphasized.

“The most important thing the study showed is the primary endpoint, which was that aspirin use does not have an effect on fracture risk,” said Neil Skolnik, MD, of Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Philadelphia, in an interview.

“The increase in serious falls, as defined by a fall resulting in a visit to a hospital, is likely due to an increased risk of bleeding after a fall on aspirin,” said Dr. Skolnik, who was not involved in the study. Dr. Skolnik added that the current study findings support the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which he quoted as follows, “The USPSTF recommends against initiating low-dose aspirin use for the primary prevention of CVD in adults 60 years or older.”

The study was supported by the National Institute on Aging and the National Cancer Institute at the National Institutes of Health; the National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia); Monash University; and the Victorian Cancer Agency. Lead author Dr. Barker was supported in part by the NHMRC and also disclosed grants from the NHMRC outside the current study. The ASPREE substudy also was supported by the University of Pittsburgh Claude D. Pepper Older American Independence Center and the Wake Forest University Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center. Bayer AG provided the aspirin used in the study but had no other role. Dr. Skolnik had no financial conflicts to disclose, but he serves on the editorial advisory board of Family Practice News.

Reactions to poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac, which affect 10 to 50 million Americans a year,¹ are classified as Toxicodendron dermatitis; 50% to 75% of US adults are clinically sensitive to these plants.² Furthermore, people of all ethnicities, skin types, and ages residing in most US geographical regions are at risk.³ Allergenicity is caused by urushiol, which is found in members of the Anacardiaceae family.⁴ Once absorbed, urushiol causes a type IV hypersensitivity reaction in those who are susceptible.⁵

Cutaneous Manifestations

Toxicodendron dermatitis presents with an acute eczematous eruption characterized by streaks of intensely pruritic and erythematous papules and vesicles (Figure 1). Areas of involvement are characterized by sharp margins that follow the pattern of contact made by the plant’s leaves, berries, stems, and vines.⁶ The fluid content of the vesicles is not antigenic and cannot cause subsequent transmission to oneself or others.³ A person with prior contact to the plant who becomes sensitized develops an eruption 24 to 48 hours after subsequent contact with the plant; peak severity manifests 1 to 14 days later.⁷

When left untreated, the eruption can last 3 weeks. If the plant is burned, urushiol can be aerosolized in smoke, causing respiratory tract inflammation and generalized dermatitis, which has been reported among wildland firefighters.² Long-term complications from an outbreak are limited but can include postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and secondary bacterial infection.⁸ Rare reports of nephrotic syndrome also have appeared in the literature.⁹Toxicodendron dermatitis can present distinctively as so-called black dot dermatitis.⁶

Nomenclature

Poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac are members of the family Anacardiaceae and genus Toxicodendron,⁶ derived from the Greek words toxikos (poison) and dendron (tree).¹⁰

Distribution

Toxicodendron plants characteristically are found in various regions of the United States. Poison ivy is the most common and is comprised of 2 species: Toxicodendron rydbergii and Toxicodendron radicans. Toxicodendron rydbergii is a nonclimbing dwarf shrub typically found in the northern and western United States. Toxicodendron radicans is a climbing vine found in the eastern United States. Poison oak also is comprised of 2 species—Toxicodendron toxicarium and Toxicodendron diversilobum—and is more common in the western United States. Poison sumac (also known as Toxicodendron vernix) is a small shrub that grows in moist swampy areas. It has a predilection for marshes of the eastern and southeastern United States.^6,11

Identifying Features

Educating patients on how to identify poison ivy can play a key role in avoidance, which is the most important step in preventing Toxicodendron dermatitis. A challenge in identification of poison ivy is the plant’s variable appearance; it grows as a small shrub, low-lying vine, or vine that climbs other trees.

As the vine matures, it develops tiny, rough, “hairy” rootlets—hence the saying, “Hairy vine, no friend of mine!” Rootlets help the plant attach to trees growing near a water source. Vines can reach a diameter of 3 inches. From mature vines, solitary stems extend 1 to 2 inches with 3 characteristic leaves at the terminus (Figure 2), prompting another classic saying, “Leaves of 3, let it be!”¹²

Poison oak is characterized by 3 to 5 leaflets. Poison sumac has 7 to 13 pointed, smooth-edged leaves.⁶

Dermatitis-Inducing Plant Parts

The primary allergenic component of Toxicodendron plants is urushiol, a resinous sap found in stems, roots, leaves, and skins of the fruits. These components must be damaged or bruised to release the allergen; slight contact with an uninjured plant part might not lead to harm.^2,13 Some common forms of transmission include skin contact, ingestion, inhalation of smoke from burning plants, and contact with skin through contaminated items, such as clothing, animals, and tools.¹⁴

Allergens

The catecholic ring and aliphatic chain of the urushiol molecule are allergenic.¹⁵ The degree of saturation and length of the side chains vary with different catechols. Urushiol displays cross-reactivity with poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac. Urushiol from these plants differs only slightly in structure; therefore, sensitization to one causes sensitization to all. There also is cross-reactivity between different members of the Anacardiaceae family, including Anacardium occidentale (tropical cashew nut), Mangifera indica (tropical mango tree), Ginkgo biloba (ginkgo tree), and Semecarpus anacardium (Indian marking nut tree).¹²

Poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac cause allergic contact dermatitis as a type IV hypersensitivity reaction. First, urushiol binds and penetrates the skin, where it is oxidized to quinone intermediates and bound to haptens. Then, the intermediates bind surface proteins on antigen-presenting cells, specifically Langerhans cells in the epidermis and dermis.⁵

Presentation of nonpeptide antigens, such as urushiol, to T cells requires expression of langerin (also known as CD207) and CD1a.¹⁶ Langerin is a C-type lectin that causes formation of Birbeck granules; CD1a is a major histocompatibility complex class I molecule found in Birbeck granules.^5,17 After Langerhans cells internalize and process the urushiol self-hapten neoantigen, it is presented to CD4⁺ T cells.⁶ These cells then expand to form circulating activated T-effector and T-memory lymphocytes.¹⁸

The molecular link that occurs between the hapten and carrier protein determines the response. When linked by an amino nucleophile, selective induction of T-effector cells ensues, resulting in allergic contact dermatitis. When linked by a sulfhydryl bond, selective induction of suppressor cells occurs, resulting in a reduced allergic contact dermatitis response.¹⁹ In the case of activation of T-effector cells, a cell-mediated cytotoxic immune response is generated that destroys epidermal cells and dermal vasculature.² The incidence and intensity of poison ivy sensitivity decline proportionally with age and the absence of continued exposure.²⁰

Preventive Action—Patients should be counseled that if contact between plant and skin occurs, it is important to remove contaminated clothing or objects and wash them with soap to prevent additional exposure.^14,21 Areas of the skin that made contact with the plant should be washed with water as soon as possible; after 30 minutes, urushiol has sufficiently penetrated to cause a reaction.² Forceful unidirectional washing with a damp washcloth and liquid dishwashing soap is recommended.²²

Several barrier creams are commercially available to help prevent absorption or to deactivate the urushiol antigen. These products are used widely by forestry workers and wildland firefighters.²³ One such barrier cream is bentoquatam (sold as various trade names), an organoclay compound made of quaternium-18 bentonite that interferes with absorption of the allergen by acting as a physical blocker.²⁴

Treatment

After Toxicodendron dermatitis develops, several treatments are available to help manage symptoms. Calamine lotion can be used to help dry weeping lesions.^25,26 Topical steroids can be used to help control pruritus and alleviate inflammation. High-potency topical corticosteroids such as clobetasol and mid-potency steroids such as triamcinolone can be used. Topical anesthetics (eg, benzocaine, pramoxine, benzyl alcohol) might provide symptomatic relief.^27,28

Oral antihistamines can allow for better sleep by providing sedation but do not target the pruritus of poison ivy dermatitis, which is not histamine mediated.^29,30 Systemic corticosteroids usually are considered in more severe dermatitis—when 20% or more of the body surface area is involved; blistering and itching are severe; or the face, hands, or genitalia are involved.^31,32

Clinical Uses

Therapeutic uses for poison ivy have been explored extensively. In 1892, Dakin³³ reported that ingestion of leaves by Native Americans reduced the incidence and severity of skin lesions after contact with poison ivy. Consumption of poison ivy was further studied by Epstein and colleagues³⁴ in 1974; they concluded that ingestion of a large amount of urushiol over a period of 3 months or longer may help with hyposensitization—but not complete desensitization—to contact with poison ivy. However, the risk for adverse effects is thought to outweigh benefits because ingestion can cause perianal dermatitis, mucocutaneous sequelae, and systemic contact dermatitis.²

Although the use of Toxicodendron plants in modern-day medicine is limited, development of a vaccine (immunotherapy) against Toxicodendron dermatitis offers an exciting opportunity for further research.

Reactions to poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac, which affect 10 to 50 million Americans a year,¹ are classified as Toxicodendron dermatitis; 50% to 75% of US adults are clinically sensitive to these plants.² Furthermore, people of all ethnicities, skin types, and ages residing in most US geographical regions are at risk.³ Allergenicity is caused by urushiol, which is found in members of the Anacardiaceae family.⁴ Once absorbed, urushiol causes a type IV hypersensitivity reaction in those who are susceptible.⁵

Cutaneous Manifestations

Toxicodendron dermatitis presents with an acute eczematous eruption characterized by streaks of intensely pruritic and erythematous papules and vesicles (Figure 1). Areas of involvement are characterized by sharp margins that follow the pattern of contact made by the plant’s leaves, berries, stems, and vines.⁶ The fluid content of the vesicles is not antigenic and cannot cause subsequent transmission to oneself or others.³ A person with prior contact to the plant who becomes sensitized develops an eruption 24 to 48 hours after subsequent contact with the plant; peak severity manifests 1 to 14 days later.⁷

When left untreated, the eruption can last 3 weeks. If the plant is burned, urushiol can be aerosolized in smoke, causing respiratory tract inflammation and generalized dermatitis, which has been reported among wildland firefighters.² Long-term complications from an outbreak are limited but can include postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and secondary bacterial infection.⁸ Rare reports of nephrotic syndrome also have appeared in the literature.⁹Toxicodendron dermatitis can present distinctively as so-called black dot dermatitis.⁶

Nomenclature

Poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac are members of the family Anacardiaceae and genus Toxicodendron,⁶ derived from the Greek words toxikos (poison) and dendron (tree).¹⁰

Distribution

Toxicodendron plants characteristically are found in various regions of the United States. Poison ivy is the most common and is comprised of 2 species: Toxicodendron rydbergii and Toxicodendron radicans. Toxicodendron rydbergii is a nonclimbing dwarf shrub typically found in the northern and western United States. Toxicodendron radicans is a climbing vine found in the eastern United States. Poison oak also is comprised of 2 species—Toxicodendron toxicarium and Toxicodendron diversilobum—and is more common in the western United States. Poison sumac (also known as Toxicodendron vernix) is a small shrub that grows in moist swampy areas. It has a predilection for marshes of the eastern and southeastern United States.^6,11

Identifying Features

Educating patients on how to identify poison ivy can play a key role in avoidance, which is the most important step in preventing Toxicodendron dermatitis. A challenge in identification of poison ivy is the plant’s variable appearance; it grows as a small shrub, low-lying vine, or vine that climbs other trees.

As the vine matures, it develops tiny, rough, “hairy” rootlets—hence the saying, “Hairy vine, no friend of mine!” Rootlets help the plant attach to trees growing near a water source. Vines can reach a diameter of 3 inches. From mature vines, solitary stems extend 1 to 2 inches with 3 characteristic leaves at the terminus (Figure 2), prompting another classic saying, “Leaves of 3, let it be!”¹²

Poison oak is characterized by 3 to 5 leaflets. Poison sumac has 7 to 13 pointed, smooth-edged leaves.⁶

Dermatitis-Inducing Plant Parts

The primary allergenic component of Toxicodendron plants is urushiol, a resinous sap found in stems, roots, leaves, and skins of the fruits. These components must be damaged or bruised to release the allergen; slight contact with an uninjured plant part might not lead to harm.^2,13 Some common forms of transmission include skin contact, ingestion, inhalation of smoke from burning plants, and contact with skin through contaminated items, such as clothing, animals, and tools.¹⁴

Allergens

The catecholic ring and aliphatic chain of the urushiol molecule are allergenic.¹⁵ The degree of saturation and length of the side chains vary with different catechols. Urushiol displays cross-reactivity with poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac. Urushiol from these plants differs only slightly in structure; therefore, sensitization to one causes sensitization to all. There also is cross-reactivity between different members of the Anacardiaceae family, including Anacardium occidentale (tropical cashew nut), Mangifera indica (tropical mango tree), Ginkgo biloba (ginkgo tree), and Semecarpus anacardium (Indian marking nut tree).¹²

Poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac cause allergic contact dermatitis as a type IV hypersensitivity reaction. First, urushiol binds and penetrates the skin, where it is oxidized to quinone intermediates and bound to haptens. Then, the intermediates bind surface proteins on antigen-presenting cells, specifically Langerhans cells in the epidermis and dermis.⁵

Presentation of nonpeptide antigens, such as urushiol, to T cells requires expression of langerin (also known as CD207) and CD1a.¹⁶ Langerin is a C-type lectin that causes formation of Birbeck granules; CD1a is a major histocompatibility complex class I molecule found in Birbeck granules.^5,17 After Langerhans cells internalize and process the urushiol self-hapten neoantigen, it is presented to CD4⁺ T cells.⁶ These cells then expand to form circulating activated T-effector and T-memory lymphocytes.¹⁸

The molecular link that occurs between the hapten and carrier protein determines the response. When linked by an amino nucleophile, selective induction of T-effector cells ensues, resulting in allergic contact dermatitis. When linked by a sulfhydryl bond, selective induction of suppressor cells occurs, resulting in a reduced allergic contact dermatitis response.¹⁹ In the case of activation of T-effector cells, a cell-mediated cytotoxic immune response is generated that destroys epidermal cells and dermal vasculature.² The incidence and intensity of poison ivy sensitivity decline proportionally with age and the absence of continued exposure.²⁰

Preventive Action—Patients should be counseled that if contact between plant and skin occurs, it is important to remove contaminated clothing or objects and wash them with soap to prevent additional exposure.^14,21 Areas of the skin that made contact with the plant should be washed with water as soon as possible; after 30 minutes, urushiol has sufficiently penetrated to cause a reaction.² Forceful unidirectional washing with a damp washcloth and liquid dishwashing soap is recommended.²²

Several barrier creams are commercially available to help prevent absorption or to deactivate the urushiol antigen. These products are used widely by forestry workers and wildland firefighters.²³ One such barrier cream is bentoquatam (sold as various trade names), an organoclay compound made of quaternium-18 bentonite that interferes with absorption of the allergen by acting as a physical blocker.²⁴

Treatment

After Toxicodendron dermatitis develops, several treatments are available to help manage symptoms. Calamine lotion can be used to help dry weeping lesions.^25,26 Topical steroids can be used to help control pruritus and alleviate inflammation. High-potency topical corticosteroids such as clobetasol and mid-potency steroids such as triamcinolone can be used. Topical anesthetics (eg, benzocaine, pramoxine, benzyl alcohol) might provide symptomatic relief.^27,28

Oral antihistamines can allow for better sleep by providing sedation but do not target the pruritus of poison ivy dermatitis, which is not histamine mediated.^29,30 Systemic corticosteroids usually are considered in more severe dermatitis—when 20% or more of the body surface area is involved; blistering and itching are severe; or the face, hands, or genitalia are involved.^31,32

Clinical Uses

Therapeutic uses for poison ivy have been explored extensively. In 1892, Dakin³³ reported that ingestion of leaves by Native Americans reduced the incidence and severity of skin lesions after contact with poison ivy. Consumption of poison ivy was further studied by Epstein and colleagues³⁴ in 1974; they concluded that ingestion of a large amount of urushiol over a period of 3 months or longer may help with hyposensitization—but not complete desensitization—to contact with poison ivy. However, the risk for adverse effects is thought to outweigh benefits because ingestion can cause perianal dermatitis, mucocutaneous sequelae, and systemic contact dermatitis.²

Although the use of Toxicodendron plants in modern-day medicine is limited, development of a vaccine (immunotherapy) against Toxicodendron dermatitis offers an exciting opportunity for further research.

Reactions to poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac, which affect 10 to 50 million Americans a year,¹ are classified as Toxicodendron dermatitis; 50% to 75% of US adults are clinically sensitive to these plants.² Furthermore, people of all ethnicities, skin types, and ages residing in most US geographical regions are at risk.³ Allergenicity is caused by urushiol, which is found in members of the Anacardiaceae family.⁴ Once absorbed, urushiol causes a type IV hypersensitivity reaction in those who are susceptible.⁵

Cutaneous Manifestations

Toxicodendron dermatitis presents with an acute eczematous eruption characterized by streaks of intensely pruritic and erythematous papules and vesicles (Figure 1). Areas of involvement are characterized by sharp margins that follow the pattern of contact made by the plant’s leaves, berries, stems, and vines.⁶ The fluid content of the vesicles is not antigenic and cannot cause subsequent transmission to oneself or others.³ A person with prior contact to the plant who becomes sensitized develops an eruption 24 to 48 hours after subsequent contact with the plant; peak severity manifests 1 to 14 days later.⁷

When left untreated, the eruption can last 3 weeks. If the plant is burned, urushiol can be aerosolized in smoke, causing respiratory tract inflammation and generalized dermatitis, which has been reported among wildland firefighters.² Long-term complications from an outbreak are limited but can include postinflammatory hyperpigmentation and secondary bacterial infection.⁸ Rare reports of nephrotic syndrome also have appeared in the literature.⁹Toxicodendron dermatitis can present distinctively as so-called black dot dermatitis.⁶

Nomenclature

Poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac are members of the family Anacardiaceae and genus Toxicodendron,⁶ derived from the Greek words toxikos (poison) and dendron (tree).¹⁰

Distribution

Toxicodendron plants characteristically are found in various regions of the United States. Poison ivy is the most common and is comprised of 2 species: Toxicodendron rydbergii and Toxicodendron radicans. Toxicodendron rydbergii is a nonclimbing dwarf shrub typically found in the northern and western United States. Toxicodendron radicans is a climbing vine found in the eastern United States. Poison oak also is comprised of 2 species—Toxicodendron toxicarium and Toxicodendron diversilobum—and is more common in the western United States. Poison sumac (also known as Toxicodendron vernix) is a small shrub that grows in moist swampy areas. It has a predilection for marshes of the eastern and southeastern United States.^6,11

Identifying Features

Educating patients on how to identify poison ivy can play a key role in avoidance, which is the most important step in preventing Toxicodendron dermatitis. A challenge in identification of poison ivy is the plant’s variable appearance; it grows as a small shrub, low-lying vine, or vine that climbs other trees.

As the vine matures, it develops tiny, rough, “hairy” rootlets—hence the saying, “Hairy vine, no friend of mine!” Rootlets help the plant attach to trees growing near a water source. Vines can reach a diameter of 3 inches. From mature vines, solitary stems extend 1 to 2 inches with 3 characteristic leaves at the terminus (Figure 2), prompting another classic saying, “Leaves of 3, let it be!”¹²

Poison oak is characterized by 3 to 5 leaflets. Poison sumac has 7 to 13 pointed, smooth-edged leaves.⁶

Dermatitis-Inducing Plant Parts

The primary allergenic component of Toxicodendron plants is urushiol, a resinous sap found in stems, roots, leaves, and skins of the fruits. These components must be damaged or bruised to release the allergen; slight contact with an uninjured plant part might not lead to harm.^2,13 Some common forms of transmission include skin contact, ingestion, inhalation of smoke from burning plants, and contact with skin through contaminated items, such as clothing, animals, and tools.¹⁴

Allergens

The catecholic ring and aliphatic chain of the urushiol molecule are allergenic.¹⁵ The degree of saturation and length of the side chains vary with different catechols. Urushiol displays cross-reactivity with poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac. Urushiol from these plants differs only slightly in structure; therefore, sensitization to one causes sensitization to all. There also is cross-reactivity between different members of the Anacardiaceae family, including Anacardium occidentale (tropical cashew nut), Mangifera indica (tropical mango tree), Ginkgo biloba (ginkgo tree), and Semecarpus anacardium (Indian marking nut tree).¹²

Poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac cause allergic contact dermatitis as a type IV hypersensitivity reaction. First, urushiol binds and penetrates the skin, where it is oxidized to quinone intermediates and bound to haptens. Then, the intermediates bind surface proteins on antigen-presenting cells, specifically Langerhans cells in the epidermis and dermis.⁵

Presentation of nonpeptide antigens, such as urushiol, to T cells requires expression of langerin (also known as CD207) and CD1a.¹⁶ Langerin is a C-type lectin that causes formation of Birbeck granules; CD1a is a major histocompatibility complex class I molecule found in Birbeck granules.^5,17 After Langerhans cells internalize and process the urushiol self-hapten neoantigen, it is presented to CD4⁺ T cells.⁶ These cells then expand to form circulating activated T-effector and T-memory lymphocytes.¹⁸

The molecular link that occurs between the hapten and carrier protein determines the response. When linked by an amino nucleophile, selective induction of T-effector cells ensues, resulting in allergic contact dermatitis. When linked by a sulfhydryl bond, selective induction of suppressor cells occurs, resulting in a reduced allergic contact dermatitis response.¹⁹ In the case of activation of T-effector cells, a cell-mediated cytotoxic immune response is generated that destroys epidermal cells and dermal vasculature.² The incidence and intensity of poison ivy sensitivity decline proportionally with age and the absence of continued exposure.²⁰

Preventive Action—Patients should be counseled that if contact between plant and skin occurs, it is important to remove contaminated clothing or objects and wash them with soap to prevent additional exposure.^14,21 Areas of the skin that made contact with the plant should be washed with water as soon as possible; after 30 minutes, urushiol has sufficiently penetrated to cause a reaction.² Forceful unidirectional washing with a damp washcloth and liquid dishwashing soap is recommended.²²

Several barrier creams are commercially available to help prevent absorption or to deactivate the urushiol antigen. These products are used widely by forestry workers and wildland firefighters.²³ One such barrier cream is bentoquatam (sold as various trade names), an organoclay compound made of quaternium-18 bentonite that interferes with absorption of the allergen by acting as a physical blocker.²⁴

Treatment

After Toxicodendron dermatitis develops, several treatments are available to help manage symptoms. Calamine lotion can be used to help dry weeping lesions.^25,26 Topical steroids can be used to help control pruritus and alleviate inflammation. High-potency topical corticosteroids such as clobetasol and mid-potency steroids such as triamcinolone can be used. Topical anesthetics (eg, benzocaine, pramoxine, benzyl alcohol) might provide symptomatic relief.^27,28

Oral antihistamines can allow for better sleep by providing sedation but do not target the pruritus of poison ivy dermatitis, which is not histamine mediated.^29,30 Systemic corticosteroids usually are considered in more severe dermatitis—when 20% or more of the body surface area is involved; blistering and itching are severe; or the face, hands, or genitalia are involved.^31,32

Clinical Uses

Therapeutic uses for poison ivy have been explored extensively. In 1892, Dakin³³ reported that ingestion of leaves by Native Americans reduced the incidence and severity of skin lesions after contact with poison ivy. Consumption of poison ivy was further studied by Epstein and colleagues³⁴ in 1974; they concluded that ingestion of a large amount of urushiol over a period of 3 months or longer may help with hyposensitization—but not complete desensitization—to contact with poison ivy. However, the risk for adverse effects is thought to outweigh benefits because ingestion can cause perianal dermatitis, mucocutaneous sequelae, and systemic contact dermatitis.²

Although the use of Toxicodendron plants in modern-day medicine is limited, development of a vaccine (immunotherapy) against Toxicodendron dermatitis offers an exciting opportunity for further research.

It is unsurprising that food frequently is thought to be the culprit behind an eczema flare, especially in infants. Indeed, it often is said that infants do only 3 things: eat, sleep, and poop.¹ For those unfortunate enough to develop the signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD), food quickly emerges as a potential culprit from the tiny pool of suspects, which is against a cultural backdrop of unprecedented focus on foods and food reactions.² The prevalence of food allergies in children, though admittedly fraught with methodological difficulties, is estimated to have more than doubled from 3.4% in 1999 to 7.6% in 2018.³ As expected, prevalence rates were higher among children with other atopic comorbidities including AD, with up to 50% of children with AD demonstrating convincing food allergy.⁴ It is easy to imagine a patient conflating these 2 entities and mistaking their correlation for causation. Thus, it follows that more than 90% of parents/guardians have reported that their children have had food-induced AD, and understandably—at least according to one study—75% of parents/guardians were found to have manipulated the diet in an attempt to manage the disease.^5,6

Patients and parents/guardians are not the only ones who have suspected food as a driving force in AD. An article in the British Medical Journal from the 1800s beautifully encapsulated the depth and duration of this quandary: “There is probably no subject in which more deeply rooted convictions have been held, not only in the profession but by the laity, than the connection between diet and disease, both as regards the causation and treatment of the latter.”⁷ Herein, a wide range of food reactions is examined to highlight evidence for the role of diet in AD, which may contradict what patients—and even some clinicians—believe.

No Easy Answers

A definitive statement that food allergy is not the root cause of AD would put this issue to rest, but such simplicity does not reflect the complex reality. First, we must agree on definitions for certain terms. What do we mean by food allergy? A broader category—adverse food reactions—covers a wide range of entities, some immune mediated and some not, including lactose intolerance, irritant contact dermatitis around the mouth, and even dermatitis herpetiformis (the cutaneous manifestation of celiac disease).⁸ Although the term food allergy often is used synonymously with adverse food reactions, the exact definition of a food allergy is specific: “adverse immune responses to food proteins that result in typical clinical symptoms.”⁸ The fact that many patients and even health care practitioners seem to frequently misapply this term makes it even more confusing. 

The current focus is on foods that could trigger a flare of AD, which clearly is a broader question than food allergy sensu stricto. It seems self-evident, for example, that if an infant with AD were to (messily) eat an acidic food such as an orange, a flare-up of AD around the mouth and on the cheeks and hands would be a forgone conclusion. Similar nonimmunologic scenarios unambiguously can occur with many foods, including citrus; corn; radish; mustard; garlic; onion; pineapple; and many spices, food additives, and preservatives.⁹ Clearly there are some scenarios whereby food could trigger an AD flare, and yet this more limited vignette generally is not what patients are referring to when suggesting that food is the root cause of their AD.

The Labyrinth of Testing for Food Allergies

Although there is no reliable method for testing for irritant dermatitis, understanding the other types of tests may help guide our thinking. Testing for IgE-mediated food allergies generally is done via an immunoenzymatic serum assay that can document sensitization to a food protein; however, this testing by itself is not sufficient to diagnose a clinical food allergy.¹⁰ Similarly, skin prick testing allows for intradermal administration of a food extract to evaluate for an urticarial reaction within 10 to 15 minutes. Although the sensitivity and specificity vary by age, population, and the specific allergen being tested, these are limited to immediate-type reactions and do not reflect the potential to drive an eczematous flare.

The gold standard, if there is one, is likely the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC), ideally with a long enough observation period to capture later-occurring reactions such as an AD flare. However, given the nature of the test—having patients eat the foods of concern and then carefully following them for reactions—it remains time consuming, expensive, and labor intensive.¹¹ 

To further complicate matters, several unvalidated tests exist such as IgG testing, atopy patch testing, kinesiology, and hair and gastric juice analysis, which remain investigational but continue to be used and may further confuse patients and clinicians.¹²

It is useful to first separate out the classic IgE-mediated food allergy reactions that are common. In these immediate-type reactions, a person sensitized to a food protein will develop characteristic cutaneous and/or extracutaneous reactions such as urticaria, angioedema, and even anaphylaxis, usually within minutes of exposure. Although it is possible that an IgE-mediated reaction could trigger an AD flare—perhaps simply by causing pruritus, which could initiate the itch-scratch cycle—because of the near simultaneity with ingestion of the offending food and the often dramatic clinical presentations, such foods clearly do not represent “hidden” triggers for AD flares.³ The concept of food-triggered AD (FTAD) is crucial for thinking about foods that could result in true eczematous flares, which historically have been classified as early-type (<2 hours after food challenge) and late-type (≥2 hours after food challenge) reactions.^13,14 

A study of more than 1000 DBPCFCs performed in patients with AD was illustrative.¹⁵ Immediate reactions other than AD were fairly common and were observed in 40% of the food challenges compared to only 9% in the placebo group. These reactions included urticaria, angioedema, and gastrointestinal and respiratory tract symptoms. Immediate reactions of AD alone were exceedingly rare at only 0.7% and not significantly elevated compared to placebo. Just over 4% experienced both an immediate AD exacerbation along with other non-AD findings, which was significantly greater than placebo (P<.01). Although intermediate and late reactions manifesting as AD exacerbations did occur after food ingestion, they were rare (2.2% or less) and not significantly different from placebo. The authors concluded that an exacerbation of AD in the absence of other allergic symptoms in children was unlikely to be due to food,¹⁵ which is an important finding.

A recent retrospective review of 372 children with AD reported similar results.⁴ The authors defined FTAD in a different way; instead of showing a flare after a DBPCFC, they looked for “physician-noted sustained improvement in AD upon removal of a food (typically after 2–6-wk follow-up), to which the child was sensitized without any other changes in skin care.” Despite this fundamentally different approach, they similarly concluded that while food allergies were common, FTAD was relatively uncommon—found in 2% of those with mild AD, 6% of those with moderate AD, and 4% of those with severe AD.⁴ 

There are other ways that foods could contribute to disease flares, however, and one of the most compelling is that there may be broader concepts at play; perhaps some diets are not specifically driving the AD but rather are affecting inflammation in the body at large. Although somewhat speculative, there is evidence that some foods may simply be proinflammatory, working to exacerbate the disease outside of a specific mechanism, which has been seen in a variety of other conditions such as acne or rheumatoid arthritis.^16,17 To speculate further, it is possible that there may be a threshold effect such that when the AD is poorly controlled, certain factors such as inflammatory foods could lead to a flare, while when under better control, these same factors may not cause an effect.

Finally, it is important to also consider the emotional and/or psychological aspects related to food and diet. The power of the placebo in dietary change has been documented in several diseases, though this certainly is not to be dismissive of the patient’s symptoms; it seems reasonable that the very act of changing such a fundamental aspect of daily life could result in a placebo effect.^18,19 In the context of relapsing and remitting conditions such as AD, this effect may be magnified. A landmark study by Thompson and Hanifin²⁰ illustrates this possibility. The authors found that in 80% of cases in which patients were convinced that food was a major contributing factor to their AD, such concerns diminished markedly once better control of the eczema was achieved.²⁰

This brings us to what to do with an individual patient in the examination room. Because there is such widespread concern and discussion around this topic, it is important to at least briefly address it. If there are known food allergens that are being avoided, it is important to underscore the importance of continuing to avoid those foods, especially when there is actual evidence of true food allergy rather than sensitization alone. Historically, elimination diets often were recommended empirically, though more recent studies, meta-analyses, and guidance documents increasingly have recommended against them.³ In particular, there are major concerns for iatrogenic harm. 

First, heavily restricted diets may result in nutritional and/or caloric deficiencies that can be dangerous and lead to poor growth.²¹ Practices such as drinking unpasteurized milk can expose children to dangerous infections, while feeding them exclusively rice milk can lead to severe malnutrition.²² 

Second, there is a dawning realization that children with AD placed on elimination diets may actually develop true IgE-mediated allergies, including fatal anaphylaxis, to the excluded foods. In fact, one retrospective review of 298 patients with a history of AD and no prior immediate reactions found that 19% of patients developed new immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions after starting an elimination diet, presumably due to the loss of tolerance to these foods. A striking one-third of these reactions were classified as anaphylaxis, with cow’s milk and egg being the most common offenders.²³

It also is crucial to acknowledge that recommending sweeping lifestyle changes is not easy for patients, especially pediatric patients. Onerous dietary restrictions may add considerable stress, ironically a known trigger for AD itself. 

Finally, dietary modifications can be a distraction from conventional therapy and may result in treatment delays while the patient continues to experience uncontrolled symptoms of AD. 

Final Thoughts

Diet is intimately related to AD. Although the narrative continues to unfold in fascinating domains, such as the skin barrier and the microbiome, it is increasingly clear that these are intertwined and always have been. Despite the rarity of true food-triggered AD, the perception of dietary triggers is so widespread and addressing the topic is important and may help avoid unnecessary harm from unfounded extreme dietary changes. A recent multispecialty workgroup report on AD and food allergy succinctly summarized this as: “AD has many triggers and comorbidities, and food allergy is only one of the potential triggers and comorbid conditions. With regard to AD management, education and skin care are most important.”³ With proper testing, guidance, and both topical and systemic therapies, most AD can be brought under control, and for at least some patients, this may allay concerns about foods triggering their AD. 

It is unsurprising that food frequently is thought to be the culprit behind an eczema flare, especially in infants. Indeed, it often is said that infants do only 3 things: eat, sleep, and poop.¹ For those unfortunate enough to develop the signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD), food quickly emerges as a potential culprit from the tiny pool of suspects, which is against a cultural backdrop of unprecedented focus on foods and food reactions.² The prevalence of food allergies in children, though admittedly fraught with methodological difficulties, is estimated to have more than doubled from 3.4% in 1999 to 7.6% in 2018.³ As expected, prevalence rates were higher among children with other atopic comorbidities including AD, with up to 50% of children with AD demonstrating convincing food allergy.⁴ It is easy to imagine a patient conflating these 2 entities and mistaking their correlation for causation. Thus, it follows that more than 90% of parents/guardians have reported that their children have had food-induced AD, and understandably—at least according to one study—75% of parents/guardians were found to have manipulated the diet in an attempt to manage the disease.^5,6

Patients and parents/guardians are not the only ones who have suspected food as a driving force in AD. An article in the British Medical Journal from the 1800s beautifully encapsulated the depth and duration of this quandary: “There is probably no subject in which more deeply rooted convictions have been held, not only in the profession but by the laity, than the connection between diet and disease, both as regards the causation and treatment of the latter.”⁷ Herein, a wide range of food reactions is examined to highlight evidence for the role of diet in AD, which may contradict what patients—and even some clinicians—believe.

No Easy Answers

A definitive statement that food allergy is not the root cause of AD would put this issue to rest, but such simplicity does not reflect the complex reality. First, we must agree on definitions for certain terms. What do we mean by food allergy? A broader category—adverse food reactions—covers a wide range of entities, some immune mediated and some not, including lactose intolerance, irritant contact dermatitis around the mouth, and even dermatitis herpetiformis (the cutaneous manifestation of celiac disease).⁸ Although the term food allergy often is used synonymously with adverse food reactions, the exact definition of a food allergy is specific: “adverse immune responses to food proteins that result in typical clinical symptoms.”⁸ The fact that many patients and even health care practitioners seem to frequently misapply this term makes it even more confusing. 

The current focus is on foods that could trigger a flare of AD, which clearly is a broader question than food allergy sensu stricto. It seems self-evident, for example, that if an infant with AD were to (messily) eat an acidic food such as an orange, a flare-up of AD around the mouth and on the cheeks and hands would be a forgone conclusion. Similar nonimmunologic scenarios unambiguously can occur with many foods, including citrus; corn; radish; mustard; garlic; onion; pineapple; and many spices, food additives, and preservatives.⁹ Clearly there are some scenarios whereby food could trigger an AD flare, and yet this more limited vignette generally is not what patients are referring to when suggesting that food is the root cause of their AD.

The Labyrinth of Testing for Food Allergies

Although there is no reliable method for testing for irritant dermatitis, understanding the other types of tests may help guide our thinking. Testing for IgE-mediated food allergies generally is done via an immunoenzymatic serum assay that can document sensitization to a food protein; however, this testing by itself is not sufficient to diagnose a clinical food allergy.¹⁰ Similarly, skin prick testing allows for intradermal administration of a food extract to evaluate for an urticarial reaction within 10 to 15 minutes. Although the sensitivity and specificity vary by age, population, and the specific allergen being tested, these are limited to immediate-type reactions and do not reflect the potential to drive an eczematous flare.

The gold standard, if there is one, is likely the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC), ideally with a long enough observation period to capture later-occurring reactions such as an AD flare. However, given the nature of the test—having patients eat the foods of concern and then carefully following them for reactions—it remains time consuming, expensive, and labor intensive.¹¹ 

To further complicate matters, several unvalidated tests exist such as IgG testing, atopy patch testing, kinesiology, and hair and gastric juice analysis, which remain investigational but continue to be used and may further confuse patients and clinicians.¹²

It is useful to first separate out the classic IgE-mediated food allergy reactions that are common. In these immediate-type reactions, a person sensitized to a food protein will develop characteristic cutaneous and/or extracutaneous reactions such as urticaria, angioedema, and even anaphylaxis, usually within minutes of exposure. Although it is possible that an IgE-mediated reaction could trigger an AD flare—perhaps simply by causing pruritus, which could initiate the itch-scratch cycle—because of the near simultaneity with ingestion of the offending food and the often dramatic clinical presentations, such foods clearly do not represent “hidden” triggers for AD flares.³ The concept of food-triggered AD (FTAD) is crucial for thinking about foods that could result in true eczematous flares, which historically have been classified as early-type (<2 hours after food challenge) and late-type (≥2 hours after food challenge) reactions.^13,14 

A study of more than 1000 DBPCFCs performed in patients with AD was illustrative.¹⁵ Immediate reactions other than AD were fairly common and were observed in 40% of the food challenges compared to only 9% in the placebo group. These reactions included urticaria, angioedema, and gastrointestinal and respiratory tract symptoms. Immediate reactions of AD alone were exceedingly rare at only 0.7% and not significantly elevated compared to placebo. Just over 4% experienced both an immediate AD exacerbation along with other non-AD findings, which was significantly greater than placebo (P<.01). Although intermediate and late reactions manifesting as AD exacerbations did occur after food ingestion, they were rare (2.2% or less) and not significantly different from placebo. The authors concluded that an exacerbation of AD in the absence of other allergic symptoms in children was unlikely to be due to food,¹⁵ which is an important finding.

A recent retrospective review of 372 children with AD reported similar results.⁴ The authors defined FTAD in a different way; instead of showing a flare after a DBPCFC, they looked for “physician-noted sustained improvement in AD upon removal of a food (typically after 2–6-wk follow-up), to which the child was sensitized without any other changes in skin care.” Despite this fundamentally different approach, they similarly concluded that while food allergies were common, FTAD was relatively uncommon—found in 2% of those with mild AD, 6% of those with moderate AD, and 4% of those with severe AD.⁴ 

There are other ways that foods could contribute to disease flares, however, and one of the most compelling is that there may be broader concepts at play; perhaps some diets are not specifically driving the AD but rather are affecting inflammation in the body at large. Although somewhat speculative, there is evidence that some foods may simply be proinflammatory, working to exacerbate the disease outside of a specific mechanism, which has been seen in a variety of other conditions such as acne or rheumatoid arthritis.^16,17 To speculate further, it is possible that there may be a threshold effect such that when the AD is poorly controlled, certain factors such as inflammatory foods could lead to a flare, while when under better control, these same factors may not cause an effect.

Finally, it is important to also consider the emotional and/or psychological aspects related to food and diet. The power of the placebo in dietary change has been documented in several diseases, though this certainly is not to be dismissive of the patient’s symptoms; it seems reasonable that the very act of changing such a fundamental aspect of daily life could result in a placebo effect.^18,19 In the context of relapsing and remitting conditions such as AD, this effect may be magnified. A landmark study by Thompson and Hanifin²⁰ illustrates this possibility. The authors found that in 80% of cases in which patients were convinced that food was a major contributing factor to their AD, such concerns diminished markedly once better control of the eczema was achieved.²⁰

This brings us to what to do with an individual patient in the examination room. Because there is such widespread concern and discussion around this topic, it is important to at least briefly address it. If there are known food allergens that are being avoided, it is important to underscore the importance of continuing to avoid those foods, especially when there is actual evidence of true food allergy rather than sensitization alone. Historically, elimination diets often were recommended empirically, though more recent studies, meta-analyses, and guidance documents increasingly have recommended against them.³ In particular, there are major concerns for iatrogenic harm. 

First, heavily restricted diets may result in nutritional and/or caloric deficiencies that can be dangerous and lead to poor growth.²¹ Practices such as drinking unpasteurized milk can expose children to dangerous infections, while feeding them exclusively rice milk can lead to severe malnutrition.²² 

Second, there is a dawning realization that children with AD placed on elimination diets may actually develop true IgE-mediated allergies, including fatal anaphylaxis, to the excluded foods. In fact, one retrospective review of 298 patients with a history of AD and no prior immediate reactions found that 19% of patients developed new immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions after starting an elimination diet, presumably due to the loss of tolerance to these foods. A striking one-third of these reactions were classified as anaphylaxis, with cow’s milk and egg being the most common offenders.²³

It also is crucial to acknowledge that recommending sweeping lifestyle changes is not easy for patients, especially pediatric patients. Onerous dietary restrictions may add considerable stress, ironically a known trigger for AD itself. 

Finally, dietary modifications can be a distraction from conventional therapy and may result in treatment delays while the patient continues to experience uncontrolled symptoms of AD. 

Final Thoughts

Diet is intimately related to AD. Although the narrative continues to unfold in fascinating domains, such as the skin barrier and the microbiome, it is increasingly clear that these are intertwined and always have been. Despite the rarity of true food-triggered AD, the perception of dietary triggers is so widespread and addressing the topic is important and may help avoid unnecessary harm from unfounded extreme dietary changes. A recent multispecialty workgroup report on AD and food allergy succinctly summarized this as: “AD has many triggers and comorbidities, and food allergy is only one of the potential triggers and comorbid conditions. With regard to AD management, education and skin care are most important.”³ With proper testing, guidance, and both topical and systemic therapies, most AD can be brought under control, and for at least some patients, this may allay concerns about foods triggering their AD. 

It is unsurprising that food frequently is thought to be the culprit behind an eczema flare, especially in infants. Indeed, it often is said that infants do only 3 things: eat, sleep, and poop.¹ For those unfortunate enough to develop the signs and symptoms of atopic dermatitis (AD), food quickly emerges as a potential culprit from the tiny pool of suspects, which is against a cultural backdrop of unprecedented focus on foods and food reactions.² The prevalence of food allergies in children, though admittedly fraught with methodological difficulties, is estimated to have more than doubled from 3.4% in 1999 to 7.6% in 2018.³ As expected, prevalence rates were higher among children with other atopic comorbidities including AD, with up to 50% of children with AD demonstrating convincing food allergy.⁴ It is easy to imagine a patient conflating these 2 entities and mistaking their correlation for causation. Thus, it follows that more than 90% of parents/guardians have reported that their children have had food-induced AD, and understandably—at least according to one study—75% of parents/guardians were found to have manipulated the diet in an attempt to manage the disease.^5,6

Patients and parents/guardians are not the only ones who have suspected food as a driving force in AD. An article in the British Medical Journal from the 1800s beautifully encapsulated the depth and duration of this quandary: “There is probably no subject in which more deeply rooted convictions have been held, not only in the profession but by the laity, than the connection between diet and disease, both as regards the causation and treatment of the latter.”⁷ Herein, a wide range of food reactions is examined to highlight evidence for the role of diet in AD, which may contradict what patients—and even some clinicians—believe.

No Easy Answers

A definitive statement that food allergy is not the root cause of AD would put this issue to rest, but such simplicity does not reflect the complex reality. First, we must agree on definitions for certain terms. What do we mean by food allergy? A broader category—adverse food reactions—covers a wide range of entities, some immune mediated and some not, including lactose intolerance, irritant contact dermatitis around the mouth, and even dermatitis herpetiformis (the cutaneous manifestation of celiac disease).⁸ Although the term food allergy often is used synonymously with adverse food reactions, the exact definition of a food allergy is specific: “adverse immune responses to food proteins that result in typical clinical symptoms.”⁸ The fact that many patients and even health care practitioners seem to frequently misapply this term makes it even more confusing. 

The current focus is on foods that could trigger a flare of AD, which clearly is a broader question than food allergy sensu stricto. It seems self-evident, for example, that if an infant with AD were to (messily) eat an acidic food such as an orange, a flare-up of AD around the mouth and on the cheeks and hands would be a forgone conclusion. Similar nonimmunologic scenarios unambiguously can occur with many foods, including citrus; corn; radish; mustard; garlic; onion; pineapple; and many spices, food additives, and preservatives.⁹ Clearly there are some scenarios whereby food could trigger an AD flare, and yet this more limited vignette generally is not what patients are referring to when suggesting that food is the root cause of their AD.

The Labyrinth of Testing for Food Allergies

Although there is no reliable method for testing for irritant dermatitis, understanding the other types of tests may help guide our thinking. Testing for IgE-mediated food allergies generally is done via an immunoenzymatic serum assay that can document sensitization to a food protein; however, this testing by itself is not sufficient to diagnose a clinical food allergy.¹⁰ Similarly, skin prick testing allows for intradermal administration of a food extract to evaluate for an urticarial reaction within 10 to 15 minutes. Although the sensitivity and specificity vary by age, population, and the specific allergen being tested, these are limited to immediate-type reactions and do not reflect the potential to drive an eczematous flare.

The gold standard, if there is one, is likely the double-blind, placebo-controlled food challenge (DBPCFC), ideally with a long enough observation period to capture later-occurring reactions such as an AD flare. However, given the nature of the test—having patients eat the foods of concern and then carefully following them for reactions—it remains time consuming, expensive, and labor intensive.¹¹ 

To further complicate matters, several unvalidated tests exist such as IgG testing, atopy patch testing, kinesiology, and hair and gastric juice analysis, which remain investigational but continue to be used and may further confuse patients and clinicians.¹²

It is useful to first separate out the classic IgE-mediated food allergy reactions that are common. In these immediate-type reactions, a person sensitized to a food protein will develop characteristic cutaneous and/or extracutaneous reactions such as urticaria, angioedema, and even anaphylaxis, usually within minutes of exposure. Although it is possible that an IgE-mediated reaction could trigger an AD flare—perhaps simply by causing pruritus, which could initiate the itch-scratch cycle—because of the near simultaneity with ingestion of the offending food and the often dramatic clinical presentations, such foods clearly do not represent “hidden” triggers for AD flares.³ The concept of food-triggered AD (FTAD) is crucial for thinking about foods that could result in true eczematous flares, which historically have been classified as early-type (<2 hours after food challenge) and late-type (≥2 hours after food challenge) reactions.^13,14 

A study of more than 1000 DBPCFCs performed in patients with AD was illustrative.¹⁵ Immediate reactions other than AD were fairly common and were observed in 40% of the food challenges compared to only 9% in the placebo group. These reactions included urticaria, angioedema, and gastrointestinal and respiratory tract symptoms. Immediate reactions of AD alone were exceedingly rare at only 0.7% and not significantly elevated compared to placebo. Just over 4% experienced both an immediate AD exacerbation along with other non-AD findings, which was significantly greater than placebo (P<.01). Although intermediate and late reactions manifesting as AD exacerbations did occur after food ingestion, they were rare (2.2% or less) and not significantly different from placebo. The authors concluded that an exacerbation of AD in the absence of other allergic symptoms in children was unlikely to be due to food,¹⁵ which is an important finding.

A recent retrospective review of 372 children with AD reported similar results.⁴ The authors defined FTAD in a different way; instead of showing a flare after a DBPCFC, they looked for “physician-noted sustained improvement in AD upon removal of a food (typically after 2–6-wk follow-up), to which the child was sensitized without any other changes in skin care.” Despite this fundamentally different approach, they similarly concluded that while food allergies were common, FTAD was relatively uncommon—found in 2% of those with mild AD, 6% of those with moderate AD, and 4% of those with severe AD.⁴ 

There are other ways that foods could contribute to disease flares, however, and one of the most compelling is that there may be broader concepts at play; perhaps some diets are not specifically driving the AD but rather are affecting inflammation in the body at large. Although somewhat speculative, there is evidence that some foods may simply be proinflammatory, working to exacerbate the disease outside of a specific mechanism, which has been seen in a variety of other conditions such as acne or rheumatoid arthritis.^16,17 To speculate further, it is possible that there may be a threshold effect such that when the AD is poorly controlled, certain factors such as inflammatory foods could lead to a flare, while when under better control, these same factors may not cause an effect.

Finally, it is important to also consider the emotional and/or psychological aspects related to food and diet. The power of the placebo in dietary change has been documented in several diseases, though this certainly is not to be dismissive of the patient’s symptoms; it seems reasonable that the very act of changing such a fundamental aspect of daily life could result in a placebo effect.^18,19 In the context of relapsing and remitting conditions such as AD, this effect may be magnified. A landmark study by Thompson and Hanifin²⁰ illustrates this possibility. The authors found that in 80% of cases in which patients were convinced that food was a major contributing factor to their AD, such concerns diminished markedly once better control of the eczema was achieved.²⁰

This brings us to what to do with an individual patient in the examination room. Because there is such widespread concern and discussion around this topic, it is important to at least briefly address it. If there are known food allergens that are being avoided, it is important to underscore the importance of continuing to avoid those foods, especially when there is actual evidence of true food allergy rather than sensitization alone. Historically, elimination diets often were recommended empirically, though more recent studies, meta-analyses, and guidance documents increasingly have recommended against them.³ In particular, there are major concerns for iatrogenic harm. 

First, heavily restricted diets may result in nutritional and/or caloric deficiencies that can be dangerous and lead to poor growth.²¹ Practices such as drinking unpasteurized milk can expose children to dangerous infections, while feeding them exclusively rice milk can lead to severe malnutrition.²² 

Second, there is a dawning realization that children with AD placed on elimination diets may actually develop true IgE-mediated allergies, including fatal anaphylaxis, to the excluded foods. In fact, one retrospective review of 298 patients with a history of AD and no prior immediate reactions found that 19% of patients developed new immediate-type hypersensitivity reactions after starting an elimination diet, presumably due to the loss of tolerance to these foods. A striking one-third of these reactions were classified as anaphylaxis, with cow’s milk and egg being the most common offenders.²³

It also is crucial to acknowledge that recommending sweeping lifestyle changes is not easy for patients, especially pediatric patients. Onerous dietary restrictions may add considerable stress, ironically a known trigger for AD itself. 

Finally, dietary modifications can be a distraction from conventional therapy and may result in treatment delays while the patient continues to experience uncontrolled symptoms of AD. 

Final Thoughts

Diet is intimately related to AD. Although the narrative continues to unfold in fascinating domains, such as the skin barrier and the microbiome, it is increasingly clear that these are intertwined and always have been. Despite the rarity of true food-triggered AD, the perception of dietary triggers is so widespread and addressing the topic is important and may help avoid unnecessary harm from unfounded extreme dietary changes. A recent multispecialty workgroup report on AD and food allergy succinctly summarized this as: “AD has many triggers and comorbidities, and food allergy is only one of the potential triggers and comorbid conditions. With regard to AD management, education and skin care are most important.”³ With proper testing, guidance, and both topical and systemic therapies, most AD can be brought under control, and for at least some patients, this may allay concerns about foods triggering their AD. 

In an age of changing climate and emerging global pandemics, the ability of residency programs to prepare for and adapt to potential disasters may be paramount in preserving the training of physicians. The current literature regarding residency program disaster preparedness, which focuses predominantly on hurricanes and COVID-19,^1-8 is lacking in recommendations specific to dermatology residency programs. Likewise, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines⁹ do not address dermatology-specific concerns in disaster preparedness or response. Herein, we propose recommendations to mitigate the impact of various types of disasters on dermatology residency programs and their trainees with regard to resident safety and wellness, resident education, and patient care (Table).

Resident Safety and Wellness

Role of the Program Director—The role of the program director is critical, serving as a figure of structure and reassurance.^4,7,10 Once concern of disaster arises, the program director should contact the Designated Institutional Official (DIO) to express concerns about possible disruptions to resident training. The DIO should then contact the ACGME within 10 days to report the disaster and submit a request for emergency (eg, pandemic) or extraordinary circumstances (eg, natural disaster) categorization.^4,9 Program directors should promptly prepare plans for program reconfiguration and resident transfers in alignment with ACGME requirements to maintain evaluation and completion of core competencies of training during disasters.⁹ Program directors should prioritize the safety of trainees during the immediate threat with clear guidelines on sheltering, evacuations, or quarantines; a timeline of program recovery based on communication with residents, faculty, and administration should then be established.^10,11

Communication—Establishing a strong line of communication between program directors and residents is paramount. Collection of emergency noninstitutional contact information, establishment of a centralized website for information dissemination, use of noninstitutional email and proxy servers outside of the location of impact, social media updates, on-site use of 2-way radios, and program-wide conference calls when possible should be strongly considered as part of the disaster response.^2-4,12,13

Resident Accommodations and Mental Health—If training is disrupted, residents should be reassured of continued access to salary, housing, food, or other resources as necessary.^3,4,11 There should be clear contingency plans if residents need to leave the program for extended periods of time due to injury, illness, or personal circumstances. Although relevant in all types of disasters, resident mental health and response to trauma also must be addressed. Access to counseling, morale-building opportunities (eg, resident social events), and screening for depression or posttraumatic stress disorder may help promote well-being among residents following traumatic events.¹⁴

Resident Education

Participation in Disaster Relief—Residents may seek to aid in the disaster response, which may prove challenging in the setting of programs with high patient volume.⁴ In coordination with the ACGME and graduate medical education governing bodies, program directors should consider how residents may fulfill dermatology training requirements in conjunction with disaster relief efforts, such as working in an inpatient setting or providing wound care.¹⁰

Continued Didactic Education—The use of online learning and conference calls for continuing the dermatology curriculum is an efficient means to maintaining resident education when meeting in person poses risks to residents.¹⁵ Projections of microscopy images, clinical photographs, or other instructional materials allow for continued instruction on resident examination, histopathology, and diagnostic skills.

Continued Clinical Training—If the home institution cannot support the operation of dermatology clinics, residents should be guaranteed continued training at other institutions. Agreements with other dermatology programs, community hospitals, or private dermatology practices should be established in advance, with consideration given to the number of residents a program can support, funding transfers, and credentialing requirements.^2,4,5

Prolonged Disruptions—Nonessential departments of medical institutions may cease to function during war or mass casualty disasters, and it may be unsafe to send dermatology residents to other institutions or clinical areas. If the threat is prolonged, programs may need to consider allowing current residents a longer duration of training despite potential overlap with incoming dermatology residents.⁷

Patient Care

Disruptions to Clinic Operations—Regarding threats of violence, dangerous exposures, or natural disasters, there should be clear guidelines on sheltering in the clinical setting or stabilizing patients during a procedure.¹¹ Equipment used by residents such as laptops, microscopes, and treatment devices (eg, lasers) should be stored in weather-safe locations that would not be notably impacted by moisture or structural damage to the clinic building. If electricity or internet access are compromised, paper medical records should be available to residents to continue clinical operations. Electronic health records used by residents should regularly be backed up on remote servers or cloud storage to allow continued access to patient health information if on-site servers are not functional.¹² If disruptions are prolonged, residency program administration should coordinate with the institution to ensure there is adequate supply and storage of medications (eg, lidocaine, botulinum toxin) as well as a continued means of delivering biologic medications to patients and an ability to obtain laboratory or dermatopathology services.

In-Person Appointments vs Telemedicine—There are benefits to both residency training and patient care when physicians are able to perform in-person examinations, biopsies, and in-office treatments.¹⁶ Programs should ensure an adequate supply of personal protective equipment to continue in-office appointments, vaccinations, and medical care if a resident or other members of the team are exposed to an infectious disease.⁷ If in-person appointments are limited or impossible, telemedicine capabilities may still allow residents to meet program requirements.^7,10,15 However, reduced patient volume due to decreased elective visits or procedures may complicate the fulfillment of clinical requirements, which may need to be adjusted in the wake of a disaster.⁷

Use of Immunosuppressive Therapies—Residency programs should address the risks of prescribing immunosuppressive therapies (eg, biologics) during an infectious threat with their residents and encourage trainees to counsel patients on the importance of preventative measures to reduce risks for severe infection.¹⁷

Final Thoughts

Disasters often are unpredictable. Dermatology residency programs will not be immune to the future impacts of climate change, violent threats, or emerging pandemics. Lessons from prior natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic have made it clear that program directors need to be adaptable. If they plan proactively, comprehensive disaster preparedness can help to maintain high-quality training of dermatology residents in the face of extraordinary and challenging circumstances, promoting the resiliency and sustainability of graduate medical education.

In an age of changing climate and emerging global pandemics, the ability of residency programs to prepare for and adapt to potential disasters may be paramount in preserving the training of physicians. The current literature regarding residency program disaster preparedness, which focuses predominantly on hurricanes and COVID-19,^1-8 is lacking in recommendations specific to dermatology residency programs. Likewise, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines⁹ do not address dermatology-specific concerns in disaster preparedness or response. Herein, we propose recommendations to mitigate the impact of various types of disasters on dermatology residency programs and their trainees with regard to resident safety and wellness, resident education, and patient care (Table).

Resident Safety and Wellness

Role of the Program Director—The role of the program director is critical, serving as a figure of structure and reassurance.^4,7,10 Once concern of disaster arises, the program director should contact the Designated Institutional Official (DIO) to express concerns about possible disruptions to resident training. The DIO should then contact the ACGME within 10 days to report the disaster and submit a request for emergency (eg, pandemic) or extraordinary circumstances (eg, natural disaster) categorization.^4,9 Program directors should promptly prepare plans for program reconfiguration and resident transfers in alignment with ACGME requirements to maintain evaluation and completion of core competencies of training during disasters.⁹ Program directors should prioritize the safety of trainees during the immediate threat with clear guidelines on sheltering, evacuations, or quarantines; a timeline of program recovery based on communication with residents, faculty, and administration should then be established.^10,11

Communication—Establishing a strong line of communication between program directors and residents is paramount. Collection of emergency noninstitutional contact information, establishment of a centralized website for information dissemination, use of noninstitutional email and proxy servers outside of the location of impact, social media updates, on-site use of 2-way radios, and program-wide conference calls when possible should be strongly considered as part of the disaster response.^2-4,12,13

Resident Accommodations and Mental Health—If training is disrupted, residents should be reassured of continued access to salary, housing, food, or other resources as necessary.^3,4,11 There should be clear contingency plans if residents need to leave the program for extended periods of time due to injury, illness, or personal circumstances. Although relevant in all types of disasters, resident mental health and response to trauma also must be addressed. Access to counseling, morale-building opportunities (eg, resident social events), and screening for depression or posttraumatic stress disorder may help promote well-being among residents following traumatic events.¹⁴

Resident Education

Participation in Disaster Relief—Residents may seek to aid in the disaster response, which may prove challenging in the setting of programs with high patient volume.⁴ In coordination with the ACGME and graduate medical education governing bodies, program directors should consider how residents may fulfill dermatology training requirements in conjunction with disaster relief efforts, such as working in an inpatient setting or providing wound care.¹⁰

Continued Didactic Education—The use of online learning and conference calls for continuing the dermatology curriculum is an efficient means to maintaining resident education when meeting in person poses risks to residents.¹⁵ Projections of microscopy images, clinical photographs, or other instructional materials allow for continued instruction on resident examination, histopathology, and diagnostic skills.

Continued Clinical Training—If the home institution cannot support the operation of dermatology clinics, residents should be guaranteed continued training at other institutions. Agreements with other dermatology programs, community hospitals, or private dermatology practices should be established in advance, with consideration given to the number of residents a program can support, funding transfers, and credentialing requirements.^2,4,5

Prolonged Disruptions—Nonessential departments of medical institutions may cease to function during war or mass casualty disasters, and it may be unsafe to send dermatology residents to other institutions or clinical areas. If the threat is prolonged, programs may need to consider allowing current residents a longer duration of training despite potential overlap with incoming dermatology residents.⁷

Patient Care

Disruptions to Clinic Operations—Regarding threats of violence, dangerous exposures, or natural disasters, there should be clear guidelines on sheltering in the clinical setting or stabilizing patients during a procedure.¹¹ Equipment used by residents such as laptops, microscopes, and treatment devices (eg, lasers) should be stored in weather-safe locations that would not be notably impacted by moisture or structural damage to the clinic building. If electricity or internet access are compromised, paper medical records should be available to residents to continue clinical operations. Electronic health records used by residents should regularly be backed up on remote servers or cloud storage to allow continued access to patient health information if on-site servers are not functional.¹² If disruptions are prolonged, residency program administration should coordinate with the institution to ensure there is adequate supply and storage of medications (eg, lidocaine, botulinum toxin) as well as a continued means of delivering biologic medications to patients and an ability to obtain laboratory or dermatopathology services.

In-Person Appointments vs Telemedicine—There are benefits to both residency training and patient care when physicians are able to perform in-person examinations, biopsies, and in-office treatments.¹⁶ Programs should ensure an adequate supply of personal protective equipment to continue in-office appointments, vaccinations, and medical care if a resident or other members of the team are exposed to an infectious disease.⁷ If in-person appointments are limited or impossible, telemedicine capabilities may still allow residents to meet program requirements.^7,10,15 However, reduced patient volume due to decreased elective visits or procedures may complicate the fulfillment of clinical requirements, which may need to be adjusted in the wake of a disaster.⁷

Use of Immunosuppressive Therapies—Residency programs should address the risks of prescribing immunosuppressive therapies (eg, biologics) during an infectious threat with their residents and encourage trainees to counsel patients on the importance of preventative measures to reduce risks for severe infection.¹⁷

Final Thoughts

Disasters often are unpredictable. Dermatology residency programs will not be immune to the future impacts of climate change, violent threats, or emerging pandemics. Lessons from prior natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic have made it clear that program directors need to be adaptable. If they plan proactively, comprehensive disaster preparedness can help to maintain high-quality training of dermatology residents in the face of extraordinary and challenging circumstances, promoting the resiliency and sustainability of graduate medical education.

In an age of changing climate and emerging global pandemics, the ability of residency programs to prepare for and adapt to potential disasters may be paramount in preserving the training of physicians. The current literature regarding residency program disaster preparedness, which focuses predominantly on hurricanes and COVID-19,^1-8 is lacking in recommendations specific to dermatology residency programs. Likewise, the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) guidelines⁹ do not address dermatology-specific concerns in disaster preparedness or response. Herein, we propose recommendations to mitigate the impact of various types of disasters on dermatology residency programs and their trainees with regard to resident safety and wellness, resident education, and patient care (Table).

Resident Safety and Wellness

Role of the Program Director—The role of the program director is critical, serving as a figure of structure and reassurance.^4,7,10 Once concern of disaster arises, the program director should contact the Designated Institutional Official (DIO) to express concerns about possible disruptions to resident training. The DIO should then contact the ACGME within 10 days to report the disaster and submit a request for emergency (eg, pandemic) or extraordinary circumstances (eg, natural disaster) categorization.^4,9 Program directors should promptly prepare plans for program reconfiguration and resident transfers in alignment with ACGME requirements to maintain evaluation and completion of core competencies of training during disasters.⁹ Program directors should prioritize the safety of trainees during the immediate threat with clear guidelines on sheltering, evacuations, or quarantines; a timeline of program recovery based on communication with residents, faculty, and administration should then be established.^10,11

Communication—Establishing a strong line of communication between program directors and residents is paramount. Collection of emergency noninstitutional contact information, establishment of a centralized website for information dissemination, use of noninstitutional email and proxy servers outside of the location of impact, social media updates, on-site use of 2-way radios, and program-wide conference calls when possible should be strongly considered as part of the disaster response.^2-4,12,13

Resident Accommodations and Mental Health—If training is disrupted, residents should be reassured of continued access to salary, housing, food, or other resources as necessary.^3,4,11 There should be clear contingency plans if residents need to leave the program for extended periods of time due to injury, illness, or personal circumstances. Although relevant in all types of disasters, resident mental health and response to trauma also must be addressed. Access to counseling, morale-building opportunities (eg, resident social events), and screening for depression or posttraumatic stress disorder may help promote well-being among residents following traumatic events.¹⁴

Resident Education

Participation in Disaster Relief—Residents may seek to aid in the disaster response, which may prove challenging in the setting of programs with high patient volume.⁴ In coordination with the ACGME and graduate medical education governing bodies, program directors should consider how residents may fulfill dermatology training requirements in conjunction with disaster relief efforts, such as working in an inpatient setting or providing wound care.¹⁰

Continued Didactic Education—The use of online learning and conference calls for continuing the dermatology curriculum is an efficient means to maintaining resident education when meeting in person poses risks to residents.¹⁵ Projections of microscopy images, clinical photographs, or other instructional materials allow for continued instruction on resident examination, histopathology, and diagnostic skills.

Continued Clinical Training—If the home institution cannot support the operation of dermatology clinics, residents should be guaranteed continued training at other institutions. Agreements with other dermatology programs, community hospitals, or private dermatology practices should be established in advance, with consideration given to the number of residents a program can support, funding transfers, and credentialing requirements.^2,4,5

Prolonged Disruptions—Nonessential departments of medical institutions may cease to function during war or mass casualty disasters, and it may be unsafe to send dermatology residents to other institutions or clinical areas. If the threat is prolonged, programs may need to consider allowing current residents a longer duration of training despite potential overlap with incoming dermatology residents.⁷

Patient Care

Disruptions to Clinic Operations—Regarding threats of violence, dangerous exposures, or natural disasters, there should be clear guidelines on sheltering in the clinical setting or stabilizing patients during a procedure.¹¹ Equipment used by residents such as laptops, microscopes, and treatment devices (eg, lasers) should be stored in weather-safe locations that would not be notably impacted by moisture or structural damage to the clinic building. If electricity or internet access are compromised, paper medical records should be available to residents to continue clinical operations. Electronic health records used by residents should regularly be backed up on remote servers or cloud storage to allow continued access to patient health information if on-site servers are not functional.¹² If disruptions are prolonged, residency program administration should coordinate with the institution to ensure there is adequate supply and storage of medications (eg, lidocaine, botulinum toxin) as well as a continued means of delivering biologic medications to patients and an ability to obtain laboratory or dermatopathology services.

In-Person Appointments vs Telemedicine—There are benefits to both residency training and patient care when physicians are able to perform in-person examinations, biopsies, and in-office treatments.¹⁶ Programs should ensure an adequate supply of personal protective equipment to continue in-office appointments, vaccinations, and medical care if a resident or other members of the team are exposed to an infectious disease.⁷ If in-person appointments are limited or impossible, telemedicine capabilities may still allow residents to meet program requirements.^7,10,15 However, reduced patient volume due to decreased elective visits or procedures may complicate the fulfillment of clinical requirements, which may need to be adjusted in the wake of a disaster.⁷

Use of Immunosuppressive Therapies—Residency programs should address the risks of prescribing immunosuppressive therapies (eg, biologics) during an infectious threat with their residents and encourage trainees to counsel patients on the importance of preventative measures to reduce risks for severe infection.¹⁷

Final Thoughts

Disasters often are unpredictable. Dermatology residency programs will not be immune to the future impacts of climate change, violent threats, or emerging pandemics. Lessons from prior natural disasters and the COVID-19 pandemic have made it clear that program directors need to be adaptable. If they plan proactively, comprehensive disaster preparedness can help to maintain high-quality training of dermatology residents in the face of extraordinary and challenging circumstances, promoting the resiliency and sustainability of graduate medical education.

Practice Gap

A male patient presented with 2 concerning lesions, which histopathology revealed were invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) on the right medial chest and SCC in situ on the right upper scapular region. Both were treated with wide local excision; margins were clear in our office the same day.

This case highlighted a practice gap in postoperative care. Two factors posed a challenge to proper postoperative wound care for our patient:

• Because of the high risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the patient hoped to limit exposure by avoiding an office visit to remove the bandage.

• The patient did not have someone at home to serve as an immediate support system, which made it impossible for him to rely on others for postoperative wound care.

Previously, the patient had to ask a friend to remove a bandage for melanoma in situ on the inner aspect of the left upper arm. Therefore, after this procedure, the patient asked if the bandage could be fashioned in a manner that would allow him to remove it without assistance (Figure 1).

Technique

In constructing a bandage that is easier to remove, some necessary pressure that is provided by the bandage often is sacrificed by making it looser. Considering that our patient had moderate bleeding during the procedure—in part because he took low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d)—it was important to maintain firm pressure under the bandage postoperatively to help prevent untoward bleeding. Furthermore, because of the location of the treated site and the patient’s limited range of motion, it was not feasible for him to reach the area on the scapula and remove the bandage.¹

For easy self-removal, we designed a bandage with a pull tab that was within the patient’s reach. Suitable materials for the pull tab bandage included surgical tape, bandaging tape with adequate stretch, sterile nonadhesive gauze, fenestrated surgical gauze, and a topical emollient such as petroleum jelly or antibacterial ointment.

To clean the site and decrease the amount of oil that would reduce the effectiveness of the adhesive, the wound was prepared with 70% alcohol. The site was then treated with petroleum jelly.

Next, we designed 2 pull tab bandage prototypes that allowed easy self-removal. For both prototypes, sterile nonadhesive gauze was applied to the wound along with folded and fenestrated gauze, which provided pressure. We used prototype #1 in our patient, and prototype #2 was demonstrated as an option.

Prototype #1—We created 2 tabs—each 2-feet long—using bandaging tape that was folded on itself once horizontally (Figure 2). The tabs were aligned on either side of the wound, the tops of which sat approximately 2 inches above the top of the first layer of adhesive bandage. An initial layer of adhesive surgical dressing was applied to cover the wound; 1 inch of the dressing was left exposed on the top of each tab. In addition, there were 2 “feet” running on the bottom.

The tops of the tabs were folded back over the adhesive tape, creating a type of “hook.” An additional final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure on the surgical site.

The patient was instructed to remove the bandage 2 days after the procedure. The outcome was qualified through a 3-day postoperative telephone call. The patient was asked about postoperative pain and his level of satisfaction with treatment. He was asked if he had any changes such as bleeding, swelling, signs of infection, or increased pain in the days after surgery or perceived postoperative complications, such as irritation. We asked the patient about the relative ease of removing the bandage and if removal was painful. He reported that the bandage was easy to remove, and that doing so was not painful; furthermore, he did not have problems with the bandage or healing and did not experience any medical changes. He found the bandage to be comfortable. The patient stated that the hanging feet of the prototype #1 bandage were not bothersome and were sturdy for the time that the bandage was on.

Prototype #2—We prepared a bandage using surgical packing as the tab (Figure 3). The packing was slowly placed around the site, which was already covered with nonadhesive gauze and fenestrated surgical gauze, with adequate spacing between each loop (for a total of 3 loops), 1 of which crossed over the third loop so that the adhesive bandaging tape could be removed easily. This allowed for a single tab that could be removed by a single pull. A final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure, similar to prototype #1. The same postoperative protocol was employed to provide a consistent standard of care. We recommend use of this prototype when surgical tape is not available, and surgical packing can be used as a substitute.

Practice Implications

Patients have a better appreciation for avoiding excess visits to medical offices due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection is greater when patients who lack a support system must return to the office for aftercare or to have a bandage removed. Although protection offered by the COVID-19 vaccine alleviates concern, many patients have realized the benefits of only visiting medical offices in person when necessary.

The concept of pull tab bandages that can be removed by the patient at home has other applications. For example, patients who travel a long distance to see their physician will benefit from easier aftercare and avoid additional follow-up visits when provided with a self-removable bandage.

Practice Gap

A male patient presented with 2 concerning lesions, which histopathology revealed were invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) on the right medial chest and SCC in situ on the right upper scapular region. Both were treated with wide local excision; margins were clear in our office the same day.

This case highlighted a practice gap in postoperative care. Two factors posed a challenge to proper postoperative wound care for our patient:

• Because of the high risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the patient hoped to limit exposure by avoiding an office visit to remove the bandage.

• The patient did not have someone at home to serve as an immediate support system, which made it impossible for him to rely on others for postoperative wound care.

Previously, the patient had to ask a friend to remove a bandage for melanoma in situ on the inner aspect of the left upper arm. Therefore, after this procedure, the patient asked if the bandage could be fashioned in a manner that would allow him to remove it without assistance (Figure 1).

Technique

In constructing a bandage that is easier to remove, some necessary pressure that is provided by the bandage often is sacrificed by making it looser. Considering that our patient had moderate bleeding during the procedure—in part because he took low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d)—it was important to maintain firm pressure under the bandage postoperatively to help prevent untoward bleeding. Furthermore, because of the location of the treated site and the patient’s limited range of motion, it was not feasible for him to reach the area on the scapula and remove the bandage.¹

For easy self-removal, we designed a bandage with a pull tab that was within the patient’s reach. Suitable materials for the pull tab bandage included surgical tape, bandaging tape with adequate stretch, sterile nonadhesive gauze, fenestrated surgical gauze, and a topical emollient such as petroleum jelly or antibacterial ointment.

To clean the site and decrease the amount of oil that would reduce the effectiveness of the adhesive, the wound was prepared with 70% alcohol. The site was then treated with petroleum jelly.

Next, we designed 2 pull tab bandage prototypes that allowed easy self-removal. For both prototypes, sterile nonadhesive gauze was applied to the wound along with folded and fenestrated gauze, which provided pressure. We used prototype #1 in our patient, and prototype #2 was demonstrated as an option.

Prototype #1—We created 2 tabs—each 2-feet long—using bandaging tape that was folded on itself once horizontally (Figure 2). The tabs were aligned on either side of the wound, the tops of which sat approximately 2 inches above the top of the first layer of adhesive bandage. An initial layer of adhesive surgical dressing was applied to cover the wound; 1 inch of the dressing was left exposed on the top of each tab. In addition, there were 2 “feet” running on the bottom.

The tops of the tabs were folded back over the adhesive tape, creating a type of “hook.” An additional final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure on the surgical site.

The patient was instructed to remove the bandage 2 days after the procedure. The outcome was qualified through a 3-day postoperative telephone call. The patient was asked about postoperative pain and his level of satisfaction with treatment. He was asked if he had any changes such as bleeding, swelling, signs of infection, or increased pain in the days after surgery or perceived postoperative complications, such as irritation. We asked the patient about the relative ease of removing the bandage and if removal was painful. He reported that the bandage was easy to remove, and that doing so was not painful; furthermore, he did not have problems with the bandage or healing and did not experience any medical changes. He found the bandage to be comfortable. The patient stated that the hanging feet of the prototype #1 bandage were not bothersome and were sturdy for the time that the bandage was on.

Prototype #2—We prepared a bandage using surgical packing as the tab (Figure 3). The packing was slowly placed around the site, which was already covered with nonadhesive gauze and fenestrated surgical gauze, with adequate spacing between each loop (for a total of 3 loops), 1 of which crossed over the third loop so that the adhesive bandaging tape could be removed easily. This allowed for a single tab that could be removed by a single pull. A final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure, similar to prototype #1. The same postoperative protocol was employed to provide a consistent standard of care. We recommend use of this prototype when surgical tape is not available, and surgical packing can be used as a substitute.

Practice Implications

Patients have a better appreciation for avoiding excess visits to medical offices due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection is greater when patients who lack a support system must return to the office for aftercare or to have a bandage removed. Although protection offered by the COVID-19 vaccine alleviates concern, many patients have realized the benefits of only visiting medical offices in person when necessary.

The concept of pull tab bandages that can be removed by the patient at home has other applications. For example, patients who travel a long distance to see their physician will benefit from easier aftercare and avoid additional follow-up visits when provided with a self-removable bandage.

Practice Gap

A male patient presented with 2 concerning lesions, which histopathology revealed were invasive squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) on the right medial chest and SCC in situ on the right upper scapular region. Both were treated with wide local excision; margins were clear in our office the same day.

This case highlighted a practice gap in postoperative care. Two factors posed a challenge to proper postoperative wound care for our patient:

• Because of the high risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, the patient hoped to limit exposure by avoiding an office visit to remove the bandage.

• The patient did not have someone at home to serve as an immediate support system, which made it impossible for him to rely on others for postoperative wound care.

Previously, the patient had to ask a friend to remove a bandage for melanoma in situ on the inner aspect of the left upper arm. Therefore, after this procedure, the patient asked if the bandage could be fashioned in a manner that would allow him to remove it without assistance (Figure 1).

Technique

In constructing a bandage that is easier to remove, some necessary pressure that is provided by the bandage often is sacrificed by making it looser. Considering that our patient had moderate bleeding during the procedure—in part because he took low-dose aspirin (81 mg/d)—it was important to maintain firm pressure under the bandage postoperatively to help prevent untoward bleeding. Furthermore, because of the location of the treated site and the patient’s limited range of motion, it was not feasible for him to reach the area on the scapula and remove the bandage.¹

For easy self-removal, we designed a bandage with a pull tab that was within the patient’s reach. Suitable materials for the pull tab bandage included surgical tape, bandaging tape with adequate stretch, sterile nonadhesive gauze, fenestrated surgical gauze, and a topical emollient such as petroleum jelly or antibacterial ointment.

To clean the site and decrease the amount of oil that would reduce the effectiveness of the adhesive, the wound was prepared with 70% alcohol. The site was then treated with petroleum jelly.

Next, we designed 2 pull tab bandage prototypes that allowed easy self-removal. For both prototypes, sterile nonadhesive gauze was applied to the wound along with folded and fenestrated gauze, which provided pressure. We used prototype #1 in our patient, and prototype #2 was demonstrated as an option.

Prototype #1—We created 2 tabs—each 2-feet long—using bandaging tape that was folded on itself once horizontally (Figure 2). The tabs were aligned on either side of the wound, the tops of which sat approximately 2 inches above the top of the first layer of adhesive bandage. An initial layer of adhesive surgical dressing was applied to cover the wound; 1 inch of the dressing was left exposed on the top of each tab. In addition, there were 2 “feet” running on the bottom.

The tops of the tabs were folded back over the adhesive tape, creating a type of “hook.” An additional final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure on the surgical site.

The patient was instructed to remove the bandage 2 days after the procedure. The outcome was qualified through a 3-day postoperative telephone call. The patient was asked about postoperative pain and his level of satisfaction with treatment. He was asked if he had any changes such as bleeding, swelling, signs of infection, or increased pain in the days after surgery or perceived postoperative complications, such as irritation. We asked the patient about the relative ease of removing the bandage and if removal was painful. He reported that the bandage was easy to remove, and that doing so was not painful; furthermore, he did not have problems with the bandage or healing and did not experience any medical changes. He found the bandage to be comfortable. The patient stated that the hanging feet of the prototype #1 bandage were not bothersome and were sturdy for the time that the bandage was on.

Prototype #2—We prepared a bandage using surgical packing as the tab (Figure 3). The packing was slowly placed around the site, which was already covered with nonadhesive gauze and fenestrated surgical gauze, with adequate spacing between each loop (for a total of 3 loops), 1 of which crossed over the third loop so that the adhesive bandaging tape could be removed easily. This allowed for a single tab that could be removed by a single pull. A final layer of adhesive tape was applied to ensure adequate pressure, similar to prototype #1. The same postoperative protocol was employed to provide a consistent standard of care. We recommend use of this prototype when surgical tape is not available, and surgical packing can be used as a substitute.

Practice Implications

Patients have a better appreciation for avoiding excess visits to medical offices due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The risk for exposure to SARS-CoV-2 infection is greater when patients who lack a support system must return to the office for aftercare or to have a bandage removed. Although protection offered by the COVID-19 vaccine alleviates concern, many patients have realized the benefits of only visiting medical offices in person when necessary.

The concept of pull tab bandages that can be removed by the patient at home has other applications. For example, patients who travel a long distance to see their physician will benefit from easier aftercare and avoid additional follow-up visits when provided with a self-removable bandage.

Click to view more from Gastroenterology Data Trends 2022.

Click to view more from Gastroenterology Data Trends 2022.

Click to view more from Gastroenterology Data Trends 2022.

New COVID-19 cases rose among U.S. children for the second consecutive week, while hospitals saw signs of renewed activity on the part of SARS-CoV-2.

The total for new cases reported during the week of Oct. 28 to Nov. 3, while still low at just under 30,000, was 21% higher than the previous week and 31% higher than 2 weeks ago (Oct. 14-20), when the count fell to its lowest level in more than a year, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their joint report.

The trend is discernible, however, when looking at hospitalizations of children with confirmed COVID. The rate of new admissions of children aged 0-17 years was 0.16 per 100,000 population as late as Oct. 23 but ticked up a notch after that and has been 0.17 per 100,000 since, according to the CDC. As with the ED rate, hospitalizations had been steadily declining since late August.

Vaccine initiation continues to slow

During the week of Oct. 27 to Nov. 2, about 30,000 children under 5 years of age received their initial COVID vaccination. A month earlier (Sept. 29 to Oct. 5), that number was about 40,000. A month before that, about 53,000 children aged 0-5 years received their initial dose, the AAP said in a separate vaccination report based on CDC data.

All of that reduced interest adds up to 7.4% of the age group having received at least one dose and just 3.2% being fully vaccinated as of Nov. 2. Among children aged 5-11 years, the corresponding vaccination rates are 38.9% and 31.8%, while those aged 12-17 years are at 71.3% and 61.1%, the CDC said.

Looking at just the first 20 weeks of the vaccination experience for each age group shows that 1.6 million children under 5 years of age had received at least an initial dose, compared with 8.1 million children aged 5-11 years and 8.1 million children aged 12-15, the AAP said.

New COVID-19 cases rose among U.S. children for the second consecutive week, while hospitals saw signs of renewed activity on the part of SARS-CoV-2.

The total for new cases reported during the week of Oct. 28 to Nov. 3, while still low at just under 30,000, was 21% higher than the previous week and 31% higher than 2 weeks ago (Oct. 14-20), when the count fell to its lowest level in more than a year, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their joint report.

The trend is discernible, however, when looking at hospitalizations of children with confirmed COVID. The rate of new admissions of children aged 0-17 years was 0.16 per 100,000 population as late as Oct. 23 but ticked up a notch after that and has been 0.17 per 100,000 since, according to the CDC. As with the ED rate, hospitalizations had been steadily declining since late August.

Vaccine initiation continues to slow

During the week of Oct. 27 to Nov. 2, about 30,000 children under 5 years of age received their initial COVID vaccination. A month earlier (Sept. 29 to Oct. 5), that number was about 40,000. A month before that, about 53,000 children aged 0-5 years received their initial dose, the AAP said in a separate vaccination report based on CDC data.

All of that reduced interest adds up to 7.4% of the age group having received at least one dose and just 3.2% being fully vaccinated as of Nov. 2. Among children aged 5-11 years, the corresponding vaccination rates are 38.9% and 31.8%, while those aged 12-17 years are at 71.3% and 61.1%, the CDC said.

Looking at just the first 20 weeks of the vaccination experience for each age group shows that 1.6 million children under 5 years of age had received at least an initial dose, compared with 8.1 million children aged 5-11 years and 8.1 million children aged 12-15, the AAP said.

New COVID-19 cases rose among U.S. children for the second consecutive week, while hospitals saw signs of renewed activity on the part of SARS-CoV-2.

The total for new cases reported during the week of Oct. 28 to Nov. 3, while still low at just under 30,000, was 21% higher than the previous week and 31% higher than 2 weeks ago (Oct. 14-20), when the count fell to its lowest level in more than a year, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association said in their joint report.

The trend is discernible, however, when looking at hospitalizations of children with confirmed COVID. The rate of new admissions of children aged 0-17 years was 0.16 per 100,000 population as late as Oct. 23 but ticked up a notch after that and has been 0.17 per 100,000 since, according to the CDC. As with the ED rate, hospitalizations had been steadily declining since late August.

Vaccine initiation continues to slow

During the week of Oct. 27 to Nov. 2, about 30,000 children under 5 years of age received their initial COVID vaccination. A month earlier (Sept. 29 to Oct. 5), that number was about 40,000. A month before that, about 53,000 children aged 0-5 years received their initial dose, the AAP said in a separate vaccination report based on CDC data.

All of that reduced interest adds up to 7.4% of the age group having received at least one dose and just 3.2% being fully vaccinated as of Nov. 2. Among children aged 5-11 years, the corresponding vaccination rates are 38.9% and 31.8%, while those aged 12-17 years are at 71.3% and 61.1%, the CDC said.

Looking at just the first 20 weeks of the vaccination experience for each age group shows that 1.6 million children under 5 years of age had received at least an initial dose, compared with 8.1 million children aged 5-11 years and 8.1 million children aged 12-15, the AAP said.